TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 204 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897344171; 15048-0_0204 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 204 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897344171?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 199 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897344103; 15048-0_0199 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 199 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897344103?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 182 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897344059; 15048-0_0182 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 182 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897344059?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 207 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343962; 15048-0_0207 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 207 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343962?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 177 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343955; 15048-0_0177 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 177 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343955?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 206 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343929; 15048-0_0206 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 206 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343929?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 176 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343922; 15048-0_0176 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 176 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343922?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343887; 15048-0_0091 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 91 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343887?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 174 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343885; 15048-0_0174 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 174 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343885?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343806; 15048-0_0089 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 89 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343806?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 166 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343771; 15048-0_0166 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 166 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343771?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 194 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343756; 15048-0_0194 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 194 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343756?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343697; 15048-0_0084 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 84 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343697?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343663; 15048-0_0066 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 66 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343663?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343616; 15048-0_0079 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 79 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343616?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343615; 15048-0_0065 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 65 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343615?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 192 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343607; 15048-0_0192 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 192 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343607?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343563; 15048-0_0063 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 63 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343563?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 71 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343518; 15048-0_0071 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 71 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343518?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 187 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343453; 15048-0_0187 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 187 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343453?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343441; 15048-0_0061 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 61 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343441?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 202 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343415; 15048-0_0202 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 202 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343415?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 197 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343396; 15048-0_0197 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 197 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343396?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 201 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343365; 15048-0_0201 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 201 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343365?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343318; 15048-0_0067 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 67 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343318?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 185 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343298; 15048-0_0185 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 185 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343298?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 190 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343290; 15048-0_0190 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 190 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343290?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 184 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343239; 15048-0_0184 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 184 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343239?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 189 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343232; 15048-0_0189 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 189 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343232?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343203; 15048-0_0086 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 86 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343203?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 188 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343176; 15048-0_0188 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 188 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343176?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 183 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343172; 15048-0_0183 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 183 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343172?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343098; 15048-0_0083 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 83 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343098?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343093; 15048-0_0081 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 81 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343093?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897343016; 15048-0_0074 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 74 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897343016?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 77 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897342957; 15048-0_0077 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 77 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897342957?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897342890; 15048-0_0076 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 76 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897342890?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 180 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897342622; 15048-0_0180 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 180 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897342622?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 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 27] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 897342620; 15041-2_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) in Cache County, Utah is proposed. A section of the locally managed irrigation canal broke away after a landslide in July 2009, causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of the affected area. Consequently, the local irrigation water delivery system is only delivering about 50 percent of the water allocated to 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. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of US 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. 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 final EIS. Under the preferred Purple 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 Lundstrom Park or 1500 North in Logan to accommodate as much as 130 cubic feet per second of water. From the Lundstrom Park option, the LN Canal water would be taken from the LHPS Canal and conveyed in a piped system under the park and city streets for about 1.2 miles to the LN Canal at about 1500 North. From the 1500 North option, the LN Canal water would be conveyed about one mile using a pipeline installed under the road surface of 1500 North to the LN Canal. At 1500 North, most of the water would be discharged directly into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream shareholders. The rest of the water would be directed into a one-mile-long pressure pipe constructed in a canal maintenance road parallel to the existing LN Canal between about 400 North and 1500 North. Shareholders between the existing LN Canal POD and the Laub Diversion would receive water through a new 10-inch-diameter pipeline constructed in the existing LN Canal alignment. The Purple Alternative would involve acquisition from willing sellers of 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: 110282, Final EIS--573 pages, Appendices--414 pages, September 2, 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 - Land Acquisitions KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Facilities 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/897342620?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 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 27] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 897342600; 15041-2_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) in Cache County, Utah is proposed. A section of the locally managed irrigation canal broke away after a landslide in July 2009, causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of the affected area. Consequently, the local irrigation water delivery system is only delivering about 50 percent of the water allocated to 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. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of US 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. 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 final EIS. Under the preferred Purple 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 Lundstrom Park or 1500 North in Logan to accommodate as much as 130 cubic feet per second of water. From the Lundstrom Park option, the LN Canal water would be taken from the LHPS Canal and conveyed in a piped system under the park and city streets for about 1.2 miles to the LN Canal at about 1500 North. From the 1500 North option, the LN Canal water would be conveyed about one mile using a pipeline installed under the road surface of 1500 North to the LN Canal. At 1500 North, most of the water would be discharged directly into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream shareholders. The rest of the water would be directed into a one-mile-long pressure pipe constructed in a canal maintenance road parallel to the existing LN Canal between about 400 North and 1500 North. Shareholders between the existing LN Canal POD and the Laub Diversion would receive water through a new 10-inch-diameter pipeline constructed in the existing LN Canal alignment. The Purple Alternative would involve acquisition from willing sellers of 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: 110282, Final EIS--573 pages, Appendices--414 pages, September 2, 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 - Land Acquisitions KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Facilities 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/897342600?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 175 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897342560; 15048-0_0175 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 175 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897342560?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 168 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897342309; 15048-0_0168 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 168 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897342309?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 254 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897342260; 15048-0_0254 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 254 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897342260?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 165 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897342237; 15048-0_0165 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 165 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897342237?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 162 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897342194; 15048-0_0162 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 162 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897342194?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 164 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897342166; 15048-0_0164 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 164 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897342166?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 138 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897342132; 15048-0_0138 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 138 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897342132?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 146 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897342101; 15048-0_0146 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 146 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897342101?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 137 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897342074; 15048-0_0137 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 137 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897342074?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 72 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897342032; 15048-0_0072 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 72 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897342032?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 133 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897342008; 15048-0_0133 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 133 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897342008?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341968; 15048-0_0068 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 68 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341968?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 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 27] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 897341895; 15041-2_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) in Cache County, Utah is proposed. A section of the locally managed irrigation canal broke away after a landslide in July 2009, causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of the affected area. Consequently, the local irrigation water delivery system is only delivering about 50 percent of the water allocated to 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. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of US 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. 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 final EIS. Under the preferred Purple 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 Lundstrom Park or 1500 North in Logan to accommodate as much as 130 cubic feet per second of water. From the Lundstrom Park option, the LN Canal water would be taken from the LHPS Canal and conveyed in a piped system under the park and city streets for about 1.2 miles to the LN Canal at about 1500 North. From the 1500 North option, the LN Canal water would be conveyed about one mile using a pipeline installed under the road surface of 1500 North to the LN Canal. At 1500 North, most of the water would be discharged directly into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream shareholders. The rest of the water would be directed into a one-mile-long pressure pipe constructed in a canal maintenance road parallel to the existing LN Canal between about 400 North and 1500 North. Shareholders between the existing LN Canal POD and the Laub Diversion would receive water through a new 10-inch-diameter pipeline constructed in the existing LN Canal alignment. The Purple Alternative would involve acquisition from willing sellers of 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: 110282, Final EIS--573 pages, Appendices--414 pages, September 2, 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 - Land Acquisitions KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Facilities 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/897341895?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341892; 15048-0_0064 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 64 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341892?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 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 27] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 897341877; 15041-2_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) in Cache County, Utah is proposed. A section of the locally managed irrigation canal broke away after a landslide in July 2009, causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of the affected area. Consequently, the local irrigation water delivery system is only delivering about 50 percent of the water allocated to 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. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of US 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. 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 final EIS. Under the preferred Purple 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 Lundstrom Park or 1500 North in Logan to accommodate as much as 130 cubic feet per second of water. From the Lundstrom Park option, the LN Canal water would be taken from the LHPS Canal and conveyed in a piped system under the park and city streets for about 1.2 miles to the LN Canal at about 1500 North. From the 1500 North option, the LN Canal water would be conveyed about one mile using a pipeline installed under the road surface of 1500 North to the LN Canal. At 1500 North, most of the water would be discharged directly into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream shareholders. The rest of the water would be directed into a one-mile-long pressure pipe constructed in a canal maintenance road parallel to the existing LN Canal between about 400 North and 1500 North. Shareholders between the existing LN Canal POD and the Laub Diversion would receive water through a new 10-inch-diameter pipeline constructed in the existing LN Canal alignment. The Purple Alternative would involve acquisition from willing sellers of 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: 110282, Final EIS--573 pages, Appendices--414 pages, September 2, 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 - Land Acquisitions KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Facilities 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/897341877?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 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 27] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 897341857; 15041-2_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) in Cache County, Utah is proposed. A section of the locally managed irrigation canal broke away after a landslide in July 2009, causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of the affected area. Consequently, the local irrigation water delivery system is only delivering about 50 percent of the water allocated to 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. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of US 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. 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 final EIS. Under the preferred Purple 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 Lundstrom Park or 1500 North in Logan to accommodate as much as 130 cubic feet per second of water. From the Lundstrom Park option, the LN Canal water would be taken from the LHPS Canal and conveyed in a piped system under the park and city streets for about 1.2 miles to the LN Canal at about 1500 North. From the 1500 North option, the LN Canal water would be conveyed about one mile using a pipeline installed under the road surface of 1500 North to the LN Canal. At 1500 North, most of the water would be discharged directly into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream shareholders. The rest of the water would be directed into a one-mile-long pressure pipe constructed in a canal maintenance road parallel to the existing LN Canal between about 400 North and 1500 North. Shareholders between the existing LN Canal POD and the Laub Diversion would receive water through a new 10-inch-diameter pipeline constructed in the existing LN Canal alignment. The Purple Alternative would involve acquisition from willing sellers of 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: 110282, Final EIS--573 pages, Appendices--414 pages, September 2, 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 - Land Acquisitions KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Facilities 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/897341857?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 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 27] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 897341840; 15041-2_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) in Cache County, Utah is proposed. A section of the locally managed irrigation canal broke away after a landslide in July 2009, causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of the affected area. Consequently, the local irrigation water delivery system is only delivering about 50 percent of the water allocated to 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. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of US 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. 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 final EIS. Under the preferred Purple 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 Lundstrom Park or 1500 North in Logan to accommodate as much as 130 cubic feet per second of water. From the Lundstrom Park option, the LN Canal water would be taken from the LHPS Canal and conveyed in a piped system under the park and city streets for about 1.2 miles to the LN Canal at about 1500 North. From the 1500 North option, the LN Canal water would be conveyed about one mile using a pipeline installed under the road surface of 1500 North to the LN Canal. At 1500 North, most of the water would be discharged directly into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream shareholders. The rest of the water would be directed into a one-mile-long pressure pipe constructed in a canal maintenance road parallel to the existing LN Canal between about 400 North and 1500 North. Shareholders between the existing LN Canal POD and the Laub Diversion would receive water through a new 10-inch-diameter pipeline constructed in the existing LN Canal alignment. The Purple Alternative would involve acquisition from willing sellers of 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: 110282, Final EIS--573 pages, Appendices--414 pages, September 2, 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 - Land Acquisitions KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Facilities 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/897341840?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 127 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341827; 15048-0_0127 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 127 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341827?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 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 27] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 897341821; 15041-2_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) in Cache County, Utah is proposed. A section of the locally managed irrigation canal broke away after a landslide in July 2009, causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of the affected area. Consequently, the local irrigation water delivery system is only delivering about 50 percent of the water allocated to 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. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of US 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. 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 final EIS. Under the preferred Purple 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 Lundstrom Park or 1500 North in Logan to accommodate as much as 130 cubic feet per second of water. From the Lundstrom Park option, the LN Canal water would be taken from the LHPS Canal and conveyed in a piped system under the park and city streets for about 1.2 miles to the LN Canal at about 1500 North. From the 1500 North option, the LN Canal water would be conveyed about one mile using a pipeline installed under the road surface of 1500 North to the LN Canal. At 1500 North, most of the water would be discharged directly into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream shareholders. The rest of the water would be directed into a one-mile-long pressure pipe constructed in a canal maintenance road parallel to the existing LN Canal between about 400 North and 1500 North. Shareholders between the existing LN Canal POD and the Laub Diversion would receive water through a new 10-inch-diameter pipeline constructed in the existing LN Canal alignment. The Purple Alternative would involve acquisition from willing sellers of 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: 110282, Final EIS--573 pages, Appendices--414 pages, September 2, 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 - Land Acquisitions KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Facilities 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/897341821?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 148 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341802; 15048-0_0148 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 148 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341802?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 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 27] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 897341799; 15041-2_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) in Cache County, Utah is proposed. A section of the locally managed irrigation canal broke away after a landslide in July 2009, causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of the affected area. Consequently, the local irrigation water delivery system is only delivering about 50 percent of the water allocated to 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. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of US 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. 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 final EIS. Under the preferred Purple 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 Lundstrom Park or 1500 North in Logan to accommodate as much as 130 cubic feet per second of water. From the Lundstrom Park option, the LN Canal water would be taken from the LHPS Canal and conveyed in a piped system under the park and city streets for about 1.2 miles to the LN Canal at about 1500 North. From the 1500 North option, the LN Canal water would be conveyed about one mile using a pipeline installed under the road surface of 1500 North to the LN Canal. At 1500 North, most of the water would be discharged directly into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream shareholders. The rest of the water would be directed into a one-mile-long pressure pipe constructed in a canal maintenance road parallel to the existing LN Canal between about 400 North and 1500 North. Shareholders between the existing LN Canal POD and the Laub Diversion would receive water through a new 10-inch-diameter pipeline constructed in the existing LN Canal alignment. The Purple Alternative would involve acquisition from willing sellers of 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: 110282, Final EIS--573 pages, Appendices--414 pages, September 2, 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 - Land Acquisitions KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Facilities 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/897341799?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 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 27] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 897341776; 15041-2_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) in Cache County, Utah is proposed. A section of the locally managed irrigation canal broke away after a landslide in July 2009, causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of the affected area. Consequently, the local irrigation water delivery system is only delivering about 50 percent of the water allocated to 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. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of US 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. 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 final EIS. Under the preferred Purple 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 Lundstrom Park or 1500 North in Logan to accommodate as much as 130 cubic feet per second of water. From the Lundstrom Park option, the LN Canal water would be taken from the LHPS Canal and conveyed in a piped system under the park and city streets for about 1.2 miles to the LN Canal at about 1500 North. From the 1500 North option, the LN Canal water would be conveyed about one mile using a pipeline installed under the road surface of 1500 North to the LN Canal. At 1500 North, most of the water would be discharged directly into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream shareholders. The rest of the water would be directed into a one-mile-long pressure pipe constructed in a canal maintenance road parallel to the existing LN Canal between about 400 North and 1500 North. Shareholders between the existing LN Canal POD and the Laub Diversion would receive water through a new 10-inch-diameter pipeline constructed in the existing LN Canal alignment. The Purple Alternative would involve acquisition from willing sellers of 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: 110282, Final EIS--573 pages, Appendices--414 pages, September 2, 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 - Land Acquisitions KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Facilities 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/897341776?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 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 27] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 897341765; 15041-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) in Cache County, Utah is proposed. A section of the locally managed irrigation canal broke away after a landslide in July 2009, causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of the affected area. Consequently, the local irrigation water delivery system is only delivering about 50 percent of the water allocated to 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. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of US 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. 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 final EIS. Under the preferred Purple 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 Lundstrom Park or 1500 North in Logan to accommodate as much as 130 cubic feet per second of water. From the Lundstrom Park option, the LN Canal water would be taken from the LHPS Canal and conveyed in a piped system under the park and city streets for about 1.2 miles to the LN Canal at about 1500 North. From the 1500 North option, the LN Canal water would be conveyed about one mile using a pipeline installed under the road surface of 1500 North to the LN Canal. At 1500 North, most of the water would be discharged directly into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream shareholders. The rest of the water would be directed into a one-mile-long pressure pipe constructed in a canal maintenance road parallel to the existing LN Canal between about 400 North and 1500 North. Shareholders between the existing LN Canal POD and the Laub Diversion would receive water through a new 10-inch-diameter pipeline constructed in the existing LN Canal alignment. The Purple Alternative would involve acquisition from willing sellers of 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: 110282, Final EIS--573 pages, Appendices--414 pages, September 2, 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 - Land Acquisitions KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Facilities 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/897341765?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341762; 15048-0_0059 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 59 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341762?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341732; 15048-0_0062 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 62 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341732?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341708; 15048-0_0034 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341708?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341660; 15048-0_0052 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 52 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341660?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341649; 15048-0_0033 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341649?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341591; 15048-0_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341591?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 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 27] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 897341578; 15041-2_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) in Cache County, Utah is proposed. A section of the locally managed irrigation canal broke away after a landslide in July 2009, causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of the affected area. Consequently, the local irrigation water delivery system is only delivering about 50 percent of the water allocated to 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. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of US 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. 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 final EIS. Under the preferred Purple 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 Lundstrom Park or 1500 North in Logan to accommodate as much as 130 cubic feet per second of water. From the Lundstrom Park option, the LN Canal water would be taken from the LHPS Canal and conveyed in a piped system under the park and city streets for about 1.2 miles to the LN Canal at about 1500 North. From the 1500 North option, the LN Canal water would be conveyed about one mile using a pipeline installed under the road surface of 1500 North to the LN Canal. At 1500 North, most of the water would be discharged directly into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream shareholders. The rest of the water would be directed into a one-mile-long pressure pipe constructed in a canal maintenance road parallel to the existing LN Canal between about 400 North and 1500 North. Shareholders between the existing LN Canal POD and the Laub Diversion would receive water through a new 10-inch-diameter pipeline constructed in the existing LN Canal alignment. The Purple Alternative would involve acquisition from willing sellers of 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: 110282, Final EIS--573 pages, Appendices--414 pages, September 2, 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 - Land Acquisitions KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Facilities 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/897341578?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 163 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341567; 15048-0_0163 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 163 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341567?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 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 27] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 897341546; 15041-2_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) in Cache County, Utah is proposed. A section of the locally managed irrigation canal broke away after a landslide in July 2009, causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of the affected area. Consequently, the local irrigation water delivery system is only delivering about 50 percent of the water allocated to 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. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of US 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. 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 final EIS. Under the preferred Purple 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 Lundstrom Park or 1500 North in Logan to accommodate as much as 130 cubic feet per second of water. From the Lundstrom Park option, the LN Canal water would be taken from the LHPS Canal and conveyed in a piped system under the park and city streets for about 1.2 miles to the LN Canal at about 1500 North. From the 1500 North option, the LN Canal water would be conveyed about one mile using a pipeline installed under the road surface of 1500 North to the LN Canal. At 1500 North, most of the water would be discharged directly into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream shareholders. The rest of the water would be directed into a one-mile-long pressure pipe constructed in a canal maintenance road parallel to the existing LN Canal between about 400 North and 1500 North. Shareholders between the existing LN Canal POD and the Laub Diversion would receive water through a new 10-inch-diameter pipeline constructed in the existing LN Canal alignment. The Purple Alternative would involve acquisition from willing sellers of 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: 110282, Final EIS--573 pages, Appendices--414 pages, September 2, 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 - Land Acquisitions KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Facilities 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/897341546?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341541; 15048-0_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341541?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 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 27] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 897341529; 15041-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) in Cache County, Utah is proposed. A section of the locally managed irrigation canal broke away after a landslide in July 2009, causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of the affected area. Consequently, the local irrigation water delivery system is only delivering about 50 percent of the water allocated to 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. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of US 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. 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 final EIS. Under the preferred Purple 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 Lundstrom Park or 1500 North in Logan to accommodate as much as 130 cubic feet per second of water. From the Lundstrom Park option, the LN Canal water would be taken from the LHPS Canal and conveyed in a piped system under the park and city streets for about 1.2 miles to the LN Canal at about 1500 North. From the 1500 North option, the LN Canal water would be conveyed about one mile using a pipeline installed under the road surface of 1500 North to the LN Canal. At 1500 North, most of the water would be discharged directly into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream shareholders. The rest of the water would be directed into a one-mile-long pressure pipe constructed in a canal maintenance road parallel to the existing LN Canal between about 400 North and 1500 North. Shareholders between the existing LN Canal POD and the Laub Diversion would receive water through a new 10-inch-diameter pipeline constructed in the existing LN Canal alignment. The Purple Alternative would involve acquisition from willing sellers of 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: 110282, Final EIS--573 pages, Appendices--414 pages, September 2, 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 - Land Acquisitions KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Facilities 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/897341529?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 252 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341523; 15048-0_0252 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 252 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341523?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341505; 15048-0_0044 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 44 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341505?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341485; 15048-0_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341485?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 219 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341478; 15048-0_0219 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 219 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341478?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 141 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341472; 15048-0_0141 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 141 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341472?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 246 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341457; 15048-0_0246 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 246 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341457?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 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 27] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 897341440; 15041-2_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) in Cache County, Utah is proposed. A section of the locally managed irrigation canal broke away after a landslide in July 2009, causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of the affected area. Consequently, the local irrigation water delivery system is only delivering about 50 percent of the water allocated to 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. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of US 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. 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 final EIS. Under the preferred Purple 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 Lundstrom Park or 1500 North in Logan to accommodate as much as 130 cubic feet per second of water. From the Lundstrom Park option, the LN Canal water would be taken from the LHPS Canal and conveyed in a piped system under the park and city streets for about 1.2 miles to the LN Canal at about 1500 North. From the 1500 North option, the LN Canal water would be conveyed about one mile using a pipeline installed under the road surface of 1500 North to the LN Canal. At 1500 North, most of the water would be discharged directly into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream shareholders. The rest of the water would be directed into a one-mile-long pressure pipe constructed in a canal maintenance road parallel to the existing LN Canal between about 400 North and 1500 North. Shareholders between the existing LN Canal POD and the Laub Diversion would receive water through a new 10-inch-diameter pipeline constructed in the existing LN Canal alignment. The Purple Alternative would involve acquisition from willing sellers of 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: 110282, Final EIS--573 pages, Appendices--414 pages, September 2, 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 - Land Acquisitions KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Facilities 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/897341440?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 218 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341438; 15048-0_0218 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 218 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341438?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 17 of 27] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 897341429; 15041-2_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) in Cache County, Utah is proposed. A section of the locally managed irrigation canal broke away after a landslide in July 2009, causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of the affected area. Consequently, the local irrigation water delivery system is only delivering about 50 percent of the water allocated to 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. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of US 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. 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 final EIS. Under the preferred Purple 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 Lundstrom Park or 1500 North in Logan to accommodate as much as 130 cubic feet per second of water. From the Lundstrom Park option, the LN Canal water would be taken from the LHPS Canal and conveyed in a piped system under the park and city streets for about 1.2 miles to the LN Canal at about 1500 North. From the 1500 North option, the LN Canal water would be conveyed about one mile using a pipeline installed under the road surface of 1500 North to the LN Canal. At 1500 North, most of the water would be discharged directly into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream shareholders. The rest of the water would be directed into a one-mile-long pressure pipe constructed in a canal maintenance road parallel to the existing LN Canal between about 400 North and 1500 North. Shareholders between the existing LN Canal POD and the Laub Diversion would receive water through a new 10-inch-diameter pipeline constructed in the existing LN Canal alignment. The Purple Alternative would involve acquisition from willing sellers of 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: 110282, Final EIS--573 pages, Appendices--414 pages, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 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 - Land Acquisitions KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Facilities 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/897341429?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 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 27] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 897341412; 15041-2_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) in Cache County, Utah is proposed. A section of the locally managed irrigation canal broke away after a landslide in July 2009, causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of the affected area. Consequently, the local irrigation water delivery system is only delivering about 50 percent of the water allocated to 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. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of US 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. 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 final EIS. Under the preferred Purple 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 Lundstrom Park or 1500 North in Logan to accommodate as much as 130 cubic feet per second of water. From the Lundstrom Park option, the LN Canal water would be taken from the LHPS Canal and conveyed in a piped system under the park and city streets for about 1.2 miles to the LN Canal at about 1500 North. From the 1500 North option, the LN Canal water would be conveyed about one mile using a pipeline installed under the road surface of 1500 North to the LN Canal. At 1500 North, most of the water would be discharged directly into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream shareholders. The rest of the water would be directed into a one-mile-long pressure pipe constructed in a canal maintenance road parallel to the existing LN Canal between about 400 North and 1500 North. Shareholders between the existing LN Canal POD and the Laub Diversion would receive water through a new 10-inch-diameter pipeline constructed in the existing LN Canal alignment. The Purple Alternative would involve acquisition from willing sellers of 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: 110282, Final EIS--573 pages, Appendices--414 pages, September 2, 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 - Land Acquisitions KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Facilities 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/897341412?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 236 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341403; 15048-0_0236 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 236 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341403?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 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 27] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 897341401; 15041-2_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) in Cache County, Utah is proposed. A section of the locally managed irrigation canal broke away after a landslide in July 2009, causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of the affected area. Consequently, the local irrigation water delivery system is only delivering about 50 percent of the water allocated to 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. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of US 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. 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 final EIS. Under the preferred Purple 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 Lundstrom Park or 1500 North in Logan to accommodate as much as 130 cubic feet per second of water. From the Lundstrom Park option, the LN Canal water would be taken from the LHPS Canal and conveyed in a piped system under the park and city streets for about 1.2 miles to the LN Canal at about 1500 North. From the 1500 North option, the LN Canal water would be conveyed about one mile using a pipeline installed under the road surface of 1500 North to the LN Canal. At 1500 North, most of the water would be discharged directly into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream shareholders. The rest of the water would be directed into a one-mile-long pressure pipe constructed in a canal maintenance road parallel to the existing LN Canal between about 400 North and 1500 North. Shareholders between the existing LN Canal POD and the Laub Diversion would receive water through a new 10-inch-diameter pipeline constructed in the existing LN Canal alignment. The Purple Alternative would involve acquisition from willing sellers of 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: 110282, Final EIS--573 pages, Appendices--414 pages, September 2, 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 - Land Acquisitions KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Facilities 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/897341401?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 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 27] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 897341380; 15041-2_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) in Cache County, Utah is proposed. A section of the locally managed irrigation canal broke away after a landslide in July 2009, causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of the affected area. Consequently, the local irrigation water delivery system is only delivering about 50 percent of the water allocated to 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. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of US 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. 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 final EIS. Under the preferred Purple 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 Lundstrom Park or 1500 North in Logan to accommodate as much as 130 cubic feet per second of water. From the Lundstrom Park option, the LN Canal water would be taken from the LHPS Canal and conveyed in a piped system under the park and city streets for about 1.2 miles to the LN Canal at about 1500 North. From the 1500 North option, the LN Canal water would be conveyed about one mile using a pipeline installed under the road surface of 1500 North to the LN Canal. At 1500 North, most of the water would be discharged directly into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream shareholders. The rest of the water would be directed into a one-mile-long pressure pipe constructed in a canal maintenance road parallel to the existing LN Canal between about 400 North and 1500 North. Shareholders between the existing LN Canal POD and the Laub Diversion would receive water through a new 10-inch-diameter pipeline constructed in the existing LN Canal alignment. The Purple Alternative would involve acquisition from willing sellers of 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: 110282, Final EIS--573 pages, Appendices--414 pages, September 2, 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 - Land Acquisitions KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Facilities 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/897341380?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 136 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341375; 15048-0_0136 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 136 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341375?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 161 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341371; 15048-0_0161 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 161 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341371?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 235 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341342; 15048-0_0235 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 235 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341342?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 216 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341327; 15048-0_0216 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 216 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341327?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341310; 15048-0_0255 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 255 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341310?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 154 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341302; 15048-0_0154 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 154 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341302?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 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 27] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 897341281; 15041-2_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) in Cache County, Utah is proposed. A section of the locally managed irrigation canal broke away after a landslide in July 2009, causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of the affected area. Consequently, the local irrigation water delivery system is only delivering about 50 percent of the water allocated to 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. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of US 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. 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 final EIS. Under the preferred Purple 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 Lundstrom Park or 1500 North in Logan to accommodate as much as 130 cubic feet per second of water. From the Lundstrom Park option, the LN Canal water would be taken from the LHPS Canal and conveyed in a piped system under the park and city streets for about 1.2 miles to the LN Canal at about 1500 North. From the 1500 North option, the LN Canal water would be conveyed about one mile using a pipeline installed under the road surface of 1500 North to the LN Canal. At 1500 North, most of the water would be discharged directly into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream shareholders. The rest of the water would be directed into a one-mile-long pressure pipe constructed in a canal maintenance road parallel to the existing LN Canal between about 400 North and 1500 North. Shareholders between the existing LN Canal POD and the Laub Diversion would receive water through a new 10-inch-diameter pipeline constructed in the existing LN Canal alignment. The Purple Alternative would involve acquisition from willing sellers of 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: 110282, Final EIS--573 pages, Appendices--414 pages, September 2, 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 - Land Acquisitions KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Facilities 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/897341281?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 158 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341272; 15048-0_0158 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 158 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341272?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 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 27] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 897341270; 15041-2_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) in Cache County, Utah is proposed. A section of the locally managed irrigation canal broke away after a landslide in July 2009, causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of the affected area. Consequently, the local irrigation water delivery system is only delivering about 50 percent of the water allocated to 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. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of US 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. 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 final EIS. Under the preferred Purple 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 Lundstrom Park or 1500 North in Logan to accommodate as much as 130 cubic feet per second of water. From the Lundstrom Park option, the LN Canal water would be taken from the LHPS Canal and conveyed in a piped system under the park and city streets for about 1.2 miles to the LN Canal at about 1500 North. From the 1500 North option, the LN Canal water would be conveyed about one mile using a pipeline installed under the road surface of 1500 North to the LN Canal. At 1500 North, most of the water would be discharged directly into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream shareholders. The rest of the water would be directed into a one-mile-long pressure pipe constructed in a canal maintenance road parallel to the existing LN Canal between about 400 North and 1500 North. Shareholders between the existing LN Canal POD and the Laub Diversion would receive water through a new 10-inch-diameter pipeline constructed in the existing LN Canal alignment. The Purple Alternative would involve acquisition from willing sellers of 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: 110282, Final EIS--573 pages, Appendices--414 pages, September 2, 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 - Land Acquisitions KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Facilities 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/897341270?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 231 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341261; 15048-0_0231 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 231 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341261?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 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 27] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 897341258; 15041-2_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) in Cache County, Utah is proposed. A section of the locally managed irrigation canal broke away after a landslide in July 2009, causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of the affected area. Consequently, the local irrigation water delivery system is only delivering about 50 percent of the water allocated to 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. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of US 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. 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 final EIS. Under the preferred Purple 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 Lundstrom Park or 1500 North in Logan to accommodate as much as 130 cubic feet per second of water. From the Lundstrom Park option, the LN Canal water would be taken from the LHPS Canal and conveyed in a piped system under the park and city streets for about 1.2 miles to the LN Canal at about 1500 North. From the 1500 North option, the LN Canal water would be conveyed about one mile using a pipeline installed under the road surface of 1500 North to the LN Canal. At 1500 North, most of the water would be discharged directly into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream shareholders. The rest of the water would be directed into a one-mile-long pressure pipe constructed in a canal maintenance road parallel to the existing LN Canal between about 400 North and 1500 North. Shareholders between the existing LN Canal POD and the Laub Diversion would receive water through a new 10-inch-diameter pipeline constructed in the existing LN Canal alignment. The Purple Alternative would involve acquisition from willing sellers of 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: 110282, Final EIS--573 pages, Appendices--414 pages, September 2, 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 - Land Acquisitions KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Facilities 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/897341258?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 153 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341245; 15048-0_0153 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 153 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341245?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 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 27] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 897341234; 15041-2_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) in Cache County, Utah is proposed. A section of the locally managed irrigation canal broke away after a landslide in July 2009, causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of the affected area. Consequently, the local irrigation water delivery system is only delivering about 50 percent of the water allocated to 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. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of US 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. 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 final EIS. Under the preferred Purple 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 Lundstrom Park or 1500 North in Logan to accommodate as much as 130 cubic feet per second of water. From the Lundstrom Park option, the LN Canal water would be taken from the LHPS Canal and conveyed in a piped system under the park and city streets for about 1.2 miles to the LN Canal at about 1500 North. From the 1500 North option, the LN Canal water would be conveyed about one mile using a pipeline installed under the road surface of 1500 North to the LN Canal. At 1500 North, most of the water would be discharged directly into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream shareholders. The rest of the water would be directed into a one-mile-long pressure pipe constructed in a canal maintenance road parallel to the existing LN Canal between about 400 North and 1500 North. Shareholders between the existing LN Canal POD and the Laub Diversion would receive water through a new 10-inch-diameter pipeline constructed in the existing LN Canal alignment. The Purple Alternative would involve acquisition from willing sellers of 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: 110282, Final EIS--573 pages, Appendices--414 pages, September 2, 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 - Land Acquisitions KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Facilities 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/897341234?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 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 27] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 897341209; 15041-2_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) in Cache County, Utah is proposed. A section of the locally managed irrigation canal broke away after a landslide in July 2009, causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of the affected area. Consequently, the local irrigation water delivery system is only delivering about 50 percent of the water allocated to 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. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of US 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. 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 final EIS. Under the preferred Purple 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 Lundstrom Park or 1500 North in Logan to accommodate as much as 130 cubic feet per second of water. From the Lundstrom Park option, the LN Canal water would be taken from the LHPS Canal and conveyed in a piped system under the park and city streets for about 1.2 miles to the LN Canal at about 1500 North. From the 1500 North option, the LN Canal water would be conveyed about one mile using a pipeline installed under the road surface of 1500 North to the LN Canal. At 1500 North, most of the water would be discharged directly into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream shareholders. The rest of the water would be directed into a one-mile-long pressure pipe constructed in a canal maintenance road parallel to the existing LN Canal between about 400 North and 1500 North. Shareholders between the existing LN Canal POD and the Laub Diversion would receive water through a new 10-inch-diameter pipeline constructed in the existing LN Canal alignment. The Purple Alternative would involve acquisition from willing sellers of 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: 110282, Final EIS--573 pages, Appendices--414 pages, September 2, 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 - Land Acquisitions KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Facilities 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/897341209?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 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 27] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 897341197; 15041-2_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) in Cache County, Utah is proposed. A section of the locally managed irrigation canal broke away after a landslide in July 2009, causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of the affected area. Consequently, the local irrigation water delivery system is only delivering about 50 percent of the water allocated to 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. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of US 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. 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 final EIS. Under the preferred Purple 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 Lundstrom Park or 1500 North in Logan to accommodate as much as 130 cubic feet per second of water. From the Lundstrom Park option, the LN Canal water would be taken from the LHPS Canal and conveyed in a piped system under the park and city streets for about 1.2 miles to the LN Canal at about 1500 North. From the 1500 North option, the LN Canal water would be conveyed about one mile using a pipeline installed under the road surface of 1500 North to the LN Canal. At 1500 North, most of the water would be discharged directly into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream shareholders. The rest of the water would be directed into a one-mile-long pressure pipe constructed in a canal maintenance road parallel to the existing LN Canal between about 400 North and 1500 North. Shareholders between the existing LN Canal POD and the Laub Diversion would receive water through a new 10-inch-diameter pipeline constructed in the existing LN Canal alignment. The Purple Alternative would involve acquisition from willing sellers of 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: 110282, Final EIS--573 pages, Appendices--414 pages, September 2, 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 - Land Acquisitions KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Facilities 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/897341197?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 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 27] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 897341184; 15041-2_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) in Cache County, Utah is proposed. A section of the locally managed irrigation canal broke away after a landslide in July 2009, causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of the affected area. Consequently, the local irrigation water delivery system is only delivering about 50 percent of the water allocated to 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. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of US 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. 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 final EIS. Under the preferred Purple 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 Lundstrom Park or 1500 North in Logan to accommodate as much as 130 cubic feet per second of water. From the Lundstrom Park option, the LN Canal water would be taken from the LHPS Canal and conveyed in a piped system under the park and city streets for about 1.2 miles to the LN Canal at about 1500 North. From the 1500 North option, the LN Canal water would be conveyed about one mile using a pipeline installed under the road surface of 1500 North to the LN Canal. At 1500 North, most of the water would be discharged directly into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream shareholders. The rest of the water would be directed into a one-mile-long pressure pipe constructed in a canal maintenance road parallel to the existing LN Canal between about 400 North and 1500 North. Shareholders between the existing LN Canal POD and the Laub Diversion would receive water through a new 10-inch-diameter pipeline constructed in the existing LN Canal alignment. The Purple Alternative would involve acquisition from willing sellers of 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: 110282, Final EIS--573 pages, Appendices--414 pages, September 2, 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 - Land Acquisitions KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Facilities 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/897341184?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 134 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341182; 15048-0_0134 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 134 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341182?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 147 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341178; 15048-0_0147 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 147 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341178?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 130 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341170; 15048-0_0130 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 130 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341170?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 19 of 27] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 897341168; 15041-2_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) in Cache County, Utah is proposed. A section of the locally managed irrigation canal broke away after a landslide in July 2009, causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of the affected area. Consequently, the local irrigation water delivery system is only delivering about 50 percent of the water allocated to 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. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of US 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. 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 final EIS. Under the preferred Purple 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 Lundstrom Park or 1500 North in Logan to accommodate as much as 130 cubic feet per second of water. From the Lundstrom Park option, the LN Canal water would be taken from the LHPS Canal and conveyed in a piped system under the park and city streets for about 1.2 miles to the LN Canal at about 1500 North. From the 1500 North option, the LN Canal water would be conveyed about one mile using a pipeline installed under the road surface of 1500 North to the LN Canal. At 1500 North, most of the water would be discharged directly into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream shareholders. The rest of the water would be directed into a one-mile-long pressure pipe constructed in a canal maintenance road parallel to the existing LN Canal between about 400 North and 1500 North. Shareholders between the existing LN Canal POD and the Laub Diversion would receive water through a new 10-inch-diameter pipeline constructed in the existing LN Canal alignment. The Purple Alternative would involve acquisition from willing sellers of 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: 110282, Final EIS--573 pages, Appendices--414 pages, September 2, 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 - Land Acquisitions KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Facilities 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/897341168?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 156 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341162; 15048-0_0156 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 156 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341162?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 210 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341147; 15048-0_0210 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 210 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341147?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 224 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341141; 15048-0_0224 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 224 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341141?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 152 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341133; 15048-0_0152 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 152 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341133?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA. AN - 897341127; 15043-5_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a shoreline protection project involving the nourishment of 3,412 feet of beach within the City of San Clemente, California is proposed. San Clemente is located 60 miles south of Los Angeles at the southern end of Orange County. The total study area encompasses the City of San Clemente and extends from San Mateo Point, located at the southern boundary of the City, to Dana Point Harbor for a total distance of 7.5 miles. The proposed nourishment area extends from Linda Lane to T-Street where beach erosion has reduced recreational opportunities and is threatening the stability of city facilities, private property, and a major southern California commuter rail corridor. A No Action Alternative and two beach fill alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Offshore dredging would be required for the beach fill alternatives. Sand would be delivered from available borrow sites at San Clemente and Oceanside to the beach fill sites using hopper dredges with pumpout or large cutter suction dredges. Temporary nearshore pipeline and mono buoys would be positioned at about the 30-foot depth contour to permit the dredge to pump each load directly ashore. A hydraulic dredge with multiple booster pumps would pump material onshore through submerged and floating pipelines. Under the 50-foot beach width alternative, which is the recommended plan, 251,000 cubic yards of beach compatible sand would be placed to create an immediate post-construction dry beach width of 76 feet. Up to 26 feet of dry beach width would be distributed from the foreshore to the profile during the equilibration process. This alternative is estimated to take 46 working days to complete. The second beach fill alternative would require approximately 586,000 cubic yards of sand to create a post-construction dry beach width of 171 feet and a post-equilibration dry beach of 115 feet. This alternative is estimated to take 108 working days to complete. Under either action alternative, dredging would be performed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Shore equipment would work 12 hours a day, six days a week. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2012 and, depending upon available funding, maintenance nourishment would begin when the shoreline reaches the base beach width and would return the beach to the 50-foot design width using up to 251,000 cubic yards of additional material. Based on a 50-foot wide beach, and an estimated 12.8 feet/year erosion rate, it is anticipated that a fill would last about six years on average. The estimated initial construction cost of the plan is $11.1 million, for which the federal share is $7.2 million and the non-federal share is $3.9 million. Total periodic nourishment costs would be evenly split and are estimated to be $84.9 million over the 50-year period following initiation of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development and maintenance of the beach would prevent severe erosion from winter storms and damage to adjacent beachfront structures, including the heavily used rail line that runs along the beach through the city. Beach replenishment would maintain or increase tourism with consequential benefit to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Most benthic invertebrates within dredged areas would be killed and discharge of offshore sand onto receiver beaches would bury intertidal invertebrates. Offshore movement of the sand placed on the beach would likely result in significant burial of surfgrass and high value reef habitat that supports kelp beds which are particularly important habitats for many species of fish. Turbidity plumes generated during beach fill operations could interfere with foraging by gulls, terns, pelicans, and cormorants. Dredging at offshore borrow sites could alter nearshore wave conditions with unknown effects on surfing conditions. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-60), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0337D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110285, Volume I--365 pages, Volume II--581 pages, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Beaches KW - Birds KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reefs KW - Safety KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 2000, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341127?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+CLEMENTE+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+SAN+CLEMENTE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+CLEMENTE+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+SAN+CLEMENTE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341124; 15048-0_0058 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 58 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341124?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 123 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341116; 15048-0_0123 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 123 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341116?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 142 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341108; 15048-0_0142 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 142 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341108?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA. AN - 897341107; 15043-5_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a shoreline protection project involving the nourishment of 3,412 feet of beach within the City of San Clemente, California is proposed. San Clemente is located 60 miles south of Los Angeles at the southern end of Orange County. The total study area encompasses the City of San Clemente and extends from San Mateo Point, located at the southern boundary of the City, to Dana Point Harbor for a total distance of 7.5 miles. The proposed nourishment area extends from Linda Lane to T-Street where beach erosion has reduced recreational opportunities and is threatening the stability of city facilities, private property, and a major southern California commuter rail corridor. A No Action Alternative and two beach fill alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Offshore dredging would be required for the beach fill alternatives. Sand would be delivered from available borrow sites at San Clemente and Oceanside to the beach fill sites using hopper dredges with pumpout or large cutter suction dredges. Temporary nearshore pipeline and mono buoys would be positioned at about the 30-foot depth contour to permit the dredge to pump each load directly ashore. A hydraulic dredge with multiple booster pumps would pump material onshore through submerged and floating pipelines. Under the 50-foot beach width alternative, which is the recommended plan, 251,000 cubic yards of beach compatible sand would be placed to create an immediate post-construction dry beach width of 76 feet. Up to 26 feet of dry beach width would be distributed from the foreshore to the profile during the equilibration process. This alternative is estimated to take 46 working days to complete. The second beach fill alternative would require approximately 586,000 cubic yards of sand to create a post-construction dry beach width of 171 feet and a post-equilibration dry beach of 115 feet. This alternative is estimated to take 108 working days to complete. Under either action alternative, dredging would be performed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Shore equipment would work 12 hours a day, six days a week. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2012 and, depending upon available funding, maintenance nourishment would begin when the shoreline reaches the base beach width and would return the beach to the 50-foot design width using up to 251,000 cubic yards of additional material. Based on a 50-foot wide beach, and an estimated 12.8 feet/year erosion rate, it is anticipated that a fill would last about six years on average. The estimated initial construction cost of the plan is $11.1 million, for which the federal share is $7.2 million and the non-federal share is $3.9 million. Total periodic nourishment costs would be evenly split and are estimated to be $84.9 million over the 50-year period following initiation of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development and maintenance of the beach would prevent severe erosion from winter storms and damage to adjacent beachfront structures, including the heavily used rail line that runs along the beach through the city. Beach replenishment would maintain or increase tourism with consequential benefit to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Most benthic invertebrates within dredged areas would be killed and discharge of offshore sand onto receiver beaches would bury intertidal invertebrates. Offshore movement of the sand placed on the beach would likely result in significant burial of surfgrass and high value reef habitat that supports kelp beds which are particularly important habitats for many species of fish. Turbidity plumes generated during beach fill operations could interfere with foraging by gulls, terns, pelicans, and cormorants. Dredging at offshore borrow sites could alter nearshore wave conditions with unknown effects on surfing conditions. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-60), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0337D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110285, Volume I--365 pages, Volume II--581 pages, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Beaches KW - Birds KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reefs KW - Safety KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 2000, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341107?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+CLEMENTE+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+SAN+CLEMENTE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+CLEMENTE+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+SAN+CLEMENTE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341101; 15048-0_0102 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 102 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341101?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 129 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341098; 15048-0_0129 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 129 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341098?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 151 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341089; 15048-0_0151 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 151 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341089?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341084; 15048-0_0050 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 50 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341084?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 143 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341073; 15048-0_0143 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 143 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341073?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341067; 15048-0_0055 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 55 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341067?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341062; 15048-0_0101 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 101 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341062?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341041; 15048-0_0049 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341041?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 160 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341040; 15048-0_0160 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 160 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341040?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 150 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341038; 15048-0_0150 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 150 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341038?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 125 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341021; 15048-0_0125 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 125 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341021?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 100 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341020; 15048-0_0100 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 100 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341020?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 110 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897341014; 15048-0_0110 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 110 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897341014?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340985; 15048-0_0040 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340985?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 124 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340980; 15048-0_0124 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 124 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340980?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340979; 15048-0_0099 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 99 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340979?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 105 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340974; 15048-0_0105 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 105 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340974?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340953; 15048-0_0047 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 47 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340953?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340952; 15048-0_0056 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 56 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340952?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340948; 15048-0_0042 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340948?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340942; 15048-0_0039 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340942?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340934; 15048-0_0038 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340934?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340927; 15048-0_0035 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340927?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340926; 15048-0_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340926?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 46 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340902; 15048-0_0046 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 46 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340902?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340895; 15048-0_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340895?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340889; 15048-0_0037 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340889?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340877; 15048-0_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340877?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340851; 15048-0_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340851?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340800; 15048-0_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340800?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340769; 15048-0_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340769?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 238 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340758; 15048-0_0238 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 238 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340758?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 237 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340726; 15048-0_0237 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 237 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340726?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340693; 15048-0_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340693?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 223 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340692; 15048-0_0223 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 223 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340692?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 253 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340688; 15048-0_0253 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 253 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340688?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 250 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340661; 15048-0_0250 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 250 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340661?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 115 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340655; 15048-0_0115 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 115 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340655?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 114 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340628; 15048-0_0114 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 114 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340628?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 104 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340602; 15048-0_0104 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 104 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340602?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 232 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340575; 15048-0_0232 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 232 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340575?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 121 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340549; 15048-0_0121 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 121 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340549?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340540; 15048-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340540?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 112 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340515; 15048-0_0112 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 112 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340515?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 111 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340470; 15048-0_0111 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 111 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340470?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 251 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340462; 15048-0_0251 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 251 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340462?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340449; 15048-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340449?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340408; 15048-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340408?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 222 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340389; 15048-0_0222 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 222 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340389?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 247 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340342; 15048-0_0247 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 247 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340342?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 245 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340334; 15048-0_0245 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 245 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340334?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 120 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340333; 15048-0_0120 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 120 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340333?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 119 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340313; 15048-0_0119 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 119 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340313?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 244 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340311; 15048-0_0244 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 244 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340311?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340300; 15048-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340300?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 240 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340286; 15048-0_0240 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 240 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340286?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340267; 15048-0_0103 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 103 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340267?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 239 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340259; 15048-0_0239 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 239 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340259?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA. AN - 897340245; 15043-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a shoreline protection project involving the nourishment of 3,412 feet of beach within the City of San Clemente, California is proposed. San Clemente is located 60 miles south of Los Angeles at the southern end of Orange County. The total study area encompasses the City of San Clemente and extends from San Mateo Point, located at the southern boundary of the City, to Dana Point Harbor for a total distance of 7.5 miles. The proposed nourishment area extends from Linda Lane to T-Street where beach erosion has reduced recreational opportunities and is threatening the stability of city facilities, private property, and a major southern California commuter rail corridor. A No Action Alternative and two beach fill alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Offshore dredging would be required for the beach fill alternatives. Sand would be delivered from available borrow sites at San Clemente and Oceanside to the beach fill sites using hopper dredges with pumpout or large cutter suction dredges. Temporary nearshore pipeline and mono buoys would be positioned at about the 30-foot depth contour to permit the dredge to pump each load directly ashore. A hydraulic dredge with multiple booster pumps would pump material onshore through submerged and floating pipelines. Under the 50-foot beach width alternative, which is the recommended plan, 251,000 cubic yards of beach compatible sand would be placed to create an immediate post-construction dry beach width of 76 feet. Up to 26 feet of dry beach width would be distributed from the foreshore to the profile during the equilibration process. This alternative is estimated to take 46 working days to complete. The second beach fill alternative would require approximately 586,000 cubic yards of sand to create a post-construction dry beach width of 171 feet and a post-equilibration dry beach of 115 feet. This alternative is estimated to take 108 working days to complete. Under either action alternative, dredging would be performed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Shore equipment would work 12 hours a day, six days a week. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2012 and, depending upon available funding, maintenance nourishment would begin when the shoreline reaches the base beach width and would return the beach to the 50-foot design width using up to 251,000 cubic yards of additional material. Based on a 50-foot wide beach, and an estimated 12.8 feet/year erosion rate, it is anticipated that a fill would last about six years on average. The estimated initial construction cost of the plan is $11.1 million, for which the federal share is $7.2 million and the non-federal share is $3.9 million. Total periodic nourishment costs would be evenly split and are estimated to be $84.9 million over the 50-year period following initiation of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development and maintenance of the beach would prevent severe erosion from winter storms and damage to adjacent beachfront structures, including the heavily used rail line that runs along the beach through the city. Beach replenishment would maintain or increase tourism with consequential benefit to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Most benthic invertebrates within dredged areas would be killed and discharge of offshore sand onto receiver beaches would bury intertidal invertebrates. Offshore movement of the sand placed on the beach would likely result in significant burial of surfgrass and high value reef habitat that supports kelp beds which are particularly important habitats for many species of fish. Turbidity plumes generated during beach fill operations could interfere with foraging by gulls, terns, pelicans, and cormorants. Dredging at offshore borrow sites could alter nearshore wave conditions with unknown effects on surfing conditions. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-60), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0337D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110285, Volume I--365 pages, Volume II--581 pages, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Beaches KW - Birds KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reefs KW - Safety KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 2000, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340245?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+CLEMENTE+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+SAN+CLEMENTE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+CLEMENTE+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+SAN+CLEMENTE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA. AN - 897340229; 15043-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a shoreline protection project involving the nourishment of 3,412 feet of beach within the City of San Clemente, California is proposed. San Clemente is located 60 miles south of Los Angeles at the southern end of Orange County. The total study area encompasses the City of San Clemente and extends from San Mateo Point, located at the southern boundary of the City, to Dana Point Harbor for a total distance of 7.5 miles. The proposed nourishment area extends from Linda Lane to T-Street where beach erosion has reduced recreational opportunities and is threatening the stability of city facilities, private property, and a major southern California commuter rail corridor. A No Action Alternative and two beach fill alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Offshore dredging would be required for the beach fill alternatives. Sand would be delivered from available borrow sites at San Clemente and Oceanside to the beach fill sites using hopper dredges with pumpout or large cutter suction dredges. Temporary nearshore pipeline and mono buoys would be positioned at about the 30-foot depth contour to permit the dredge to pump each load directly ashore. A hydraulic dredge with multiple booster pumps would pump material onshore through submerged and floating pipelines. Under the 50-foot beach width alternative, which is the recommended plan, 251,000 cubic yards of beach compatible sand would be placed to create an immediate post-construction dry beach width of 76 feet. Up to 26 feet of dry beach width would be distributed from the foreshore to the profile during the equilibration process. This alternative is estimated to take 46 working days to complete. The second beach fill alternative would require approximately 586,000 cubic yards of sand to create a post-construction dry beach width of 171 feet and a post-equilibration dry beach of 115 feet. This alternative is estimated to take 108 working days to complete. Under either action alternative, dredging would be performed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Shore equipment would work 12 hours a day, six days a week. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2012 and, depending upon available funding, maintenance nourishment would begin when the shoreline reaches the base beach width and would return the beach to the 50-foot design width using up to 251,000 cubic yards of additional material. Based on a 50-foot wide beach, and an estimated 12.8 feet/year erosion rate, it is anticipated that a fill would last about six years on average. The estimated initial construction cost of the plan is $11.1 million, for which the federal share is $7.2 million and the non-federal share is $3.9 million. Total periodic nourishment costs would be evenly split and are estimated to be $84.9 million over the 50-year period following initiation of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development and maintenance of the beach would prevent severe erosion from winter storms and damage to adjacent beachfront structures, including the heavily used rail line that runs along the beach through the city. Beach replenishment would maintain or increase tourism with consequential benefit to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Most benthic invertebrates within dredged areas would be killed and discharge of offshore sand onto receiver beaches would bury intertidal invertebrates. Offshore movement of the sand placed on the beach would likely result in significant burial of surfgrass and high value reef habitat that supports kelp beds which are particularly important habitats for many species of fish. Turbidity plumes generated during beach fill operations could interfere with foraging by gulls, terns, pelicans, and cormorants. Dredging at offshore borrow sites could alter nearshore wave conditions with unknown effects on surfing conditions. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-60), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0337D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110285, Volume I--365 pages, Volume II--581 pages, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Beaches KW - Birds KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reefs KW - Safety KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 2000, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340229?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+CLEMENTE+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+SAN+CLEMENTE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+CLEMENTE+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+SAN+CLEMENTE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 17 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340214; 15048-0_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340214?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 27 of 27] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 897340212; 15041-2_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) in Cache County, Utah is proposed. A section of the locally managed irrigation canal broke away after a landslide in July 2009, causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of the affected area. Consequently, the local irrigation water delivery system is only delivering about 50 percent of the water allocated to 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. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of US 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. 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 final EIS. Under the preferred Purple 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 Lundstrom Park or 1500 North in Logan to accommodate as much as 130 cubic feet per second of water. From the Lundstrom Park option, the LN Canal water would be taken from the LHPS Canal and conveyed in a piped system under the park and city streets for about 1.2 miles to the LN Canal at about 1500 North. From the 1500 North option, the LN Canal water would be conveyed about one mile using a pipeline installed under the road surface of 1500 North to the LN Canal. At 1500 North, most of the water would be discharged directly into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream shareholders. The rest of the water would be directed into a one-mile-long pressure pipe constructed in a canal maintenance road parallel to the existing LN Canal between about 400 North and 1500 North. Shareholders between the existing LN Canal POD and the Laub Diversion would receive water through a new 10-inch-diameter pipeline constructed in the existing LN Canal alignment. The Purple Alternative would involve acquisition from willing sellers of 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: 110282, Final EIS--573 pages, Appendices--414 pages, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 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 - Land Acquisitions KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Facilities 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/897340212?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 248 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340203; 15048-0_0248 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 248 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340203?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 243 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340198; 15048-0_0243 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 243 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340198?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 116 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340197; 15048-0_0116 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 116 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340197?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 11 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340195; 15048-0_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340195?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 229 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340187; 15048-0_0229 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 229 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340187?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 227 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340181; 15048-0_0227 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 227 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340181?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340178; 15048-0_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340178?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340175; 15048-0_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340175?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 228 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340170; 15048-0_0228 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 228 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340170?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 226 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340165; 15048-0_0226 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 226 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340165?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340153; 15048-0_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340153?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 7 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340135; 15048-0_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340135?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 108 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340132; 15048-0_0108 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 108 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340132?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 107 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340128; 15048-0_0107 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 107 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340128?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340119; 15048-0_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340119?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 106 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340114; 15048-0_0106 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 106 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340114?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340099; 15048-0_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340099?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340079; 15048-0_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340079?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 230 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340062; 15048-0_0230 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 230 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340062?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 109 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897340054; 15048-0_0109 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 109 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897340054?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 209 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897339891; 15048-0_0209 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 209 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339891?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 208 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897339886; 15048-0_0208 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 208 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339886?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897339875; 15048-0_0092 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 92 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339875?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 212 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897339826; 15048-0_0212 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 212 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339826?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897339819; 15048-0_0097 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 97 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339819?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 96 of 255] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 897339815; 15048-0_0096 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 96 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/897339815?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 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 - 896392497; 15048 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities at the international border and continuing into the United States to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil and other crude oils to a proposed tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to delivery points in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,384 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Traversing Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, with localized facilities constructed on an existing segment of pipeline in Kansas, the proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations. The Steele City segment of the project would extend from Hardisty southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The Gulf Coast segment would extend from Cushing south to Nederland, Texas. The Houston Lateral would extend from the Gulf Coast segment, in Liberty County, Texas southwest to Moore Junction, Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations; a tank farm located on a 50-acre site in Steele City with three tanks, each with a design capacity of 350,000 barrels; 74 aboveground mainline valves; approximately 50 permanent access roads, and two crude oil delivery sites. Approximately 400 temporary use access roads, 39 stockpile sites, 21 railroad sidings and four 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, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, alternative pipeline designs, and alternative sites for above-ground facilities. Keystone has agreed to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the proposed project in accordance with 57 project-specific special conditions in addition to complying with existing Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulatory requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for 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. Implementation would address increasing crude oil demand and decreasing domestic crude supply in the U.S. and help to reduce dependence on foreign offshore crude oil supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would temporarily disturb over 20,000 acres, including grassland, forest land, and agricultural land. Surface disturbance would affect soils in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which is particularly vulnerable to wind erosion. Federally-listed plant and animal species, including the American burying beetle, could be affected. Air quality impacts would result from fugitive dust generation and emissions from construction camps, construction equipment, vehicles, pump stations and associated piping and maintenance operations, and the proposed Steele City tank farm. Water impacts would include increased sedimentation in streams and water quality degradation from pipeline spills or leaks, or from spills or leaks of fuel, lubricants, or hazardous materials. The Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska, could be affected. However, in no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0039D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110290, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--543 pages, Vols. 3 and 4--Responses to Comments, Vols. 5 through 8--Appendices, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - Forest KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply 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 KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896392497?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARTIN COUNTY HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, HUTCHINSON ISLAND, MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1986). AN - 896392494; 15047 AB - PURPOSE: The utilization of a new borrow area for beach nourishment material to continue a shore protection project in Martin County, on the east coast of Florida is proposed. Martin County is located 100 miles north of Miami and due east of Lake Okeechobee. The coastline consists of Hutchinson Island which is separated from the mainland by the Ft. Pierce and St. Lucie Inlets and the Indian River Lagoon. Hurricanes and severe storms have caused considerable erosion and damage to shoreline structures along Martin Countys ocean front beaches which extend for 21.5 miles between St. Lucie County and Palm Beach County. After a final EIS was published in 1986, the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 authorized the beach nourishment project which consisted of construction of a protective and recreational beach along four miles of shorefront southward from the St. Lucie County line to near the limit of Stuart Public Beach Park. The Martin County Beach Erosion Control Project was initially constructed in 1996 with a planned periodic renourishment interval of 11 years. Federal cost-sharing is authorized for 50 years from date of initial construction and expires in 2046. The previously approved borrow area, Gilbert Shoal, has been fully utilized. Therefore, three sand shoals within portions of the St. Lucie Shoal complex located three to seven miles offshore of Martin and St. Lucie counties were proposed as a potential source of beach-compatible sand. The total sand needed for the remainder of the 50-year life of the project is estimated at 2.4 to 4.0 million cubic yards (cy). The next renourishment phase is scheduled for 2012 and would involve the placement of 787,800 cy of material along the four-mile project area. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final supplemental EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative S-3A), an 850-acre offshore borrow area would be excavated for material. A hopper dredge would be used to excavate and transport the material just offshore of the project area, where it would be transferred hydraulically via a pipeline for placement with earth-moving equipment. The cost of the 2012 renourishment phase is estimated at $10.1 million or $9.48 per cubic yard. Biological, sedimentation, and turbidity monitoring during all phases of project construction would be implemented to ensure protection of resources within and adjacent to the fill and borrow areas. Beach nourishment using an upland sand source (Alternative S-3B) is also evaluated, but is likely to be unpractical due to transportation expense and logistical difficulties of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new source of beach-compatible sand would allow the shore protection project to continue. Beach nourishment would reduce expected storm damages, re-establish beaches as suitable recreation areas, maintain suitable wildlife habitat, and benefit commerce associated with beach recreation in Martin County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining the shoal would impact aquatic wildlife due to increased turbidity, sedimentation, disruption of feeding activities and migratory routes, and entrainment. Dredging operations could encounter sea turtles, West Indian manatees, and North Atlantic right whales and there would be potential for incidental take of sea turtles. Removal or disturbance of offshore sand shoals could impact coastal migratory fish species. Direct burial of 1.3 acres of nearshore hardgrounds would impact juvenile sea turtles and faunal fish populations. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1465), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-640). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 10-0350D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110289, Final Supplemental EIS--284 pages, Appendices--1,449 pages, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Marine Mammals KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1990, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896392494?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 896392431; 15041 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) in Cache County, Utah is proposed. A section of the locally managed irrigation canal broke away after a landslide in July 2009, causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of the affected area. Consequently, the local irrigation water delivery system is only delivering about 50 percent of the water allocated to 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. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of US 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. 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 final EIS. Under the preferred Purple 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 Lundstrom Park or 1500 North in Logan to accommodate as much as 130 cubic feet per second of water. From the Lundstrom Park option, the LN Canal water would be taken from the LHPS Canal and conveyed in a piped system under the park and city streets for about 1.2 miles to the LN Canal at about 1500 North. From the 1500 North option, the LN Canal water would be conveyed about one mile using a pipeline installed under the road surface of 1500 North to the LN Canal. At 1500 North, most of the water would be discharged directly into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream shareholders. The rest of the water would be directed into a one-mile-long pressure pipe constructed in a canal maintenance road parallel to the existing LN Canal between about 400 North and 1500 North. Shareholders between the existing LN Canal POD and the Laub Diversion would receive water through a new 10-inch-diameter pipeline constructed in the existing LN Canal alignment. The Purple Alternative would involve acquisition from willing sellers of 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: 110282, Final EIS--573 pages, Appendices--414 pages, September 2, 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 - Land Acquisitions KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Facilities 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/896392431?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16368623; 15043 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a shoreline protection project involving the nourishment of 3,412 feet of beach within the City of San Clemente, California is proposed. San Clemente is located 60 miles south of Los Angeles at the southern end of Orange County. The total study area encompasses the City of San Clemente and extends from San Mateo Point, located at the southern boundary of the City, to Dana Point Harbor for a total distance of 7.5 miles. The proposed nourishment area extends from Linda Lane to T-Street where beach erosion has reduced recreational opportunities and is threatening the stability of city facilities, private property, and a major southern California commuter rail corridor. A No Action Alternative and two beach fill alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Offshore dredging would be required for the beach fill alternatives. Sand would be delivered from available borrow sites at San Clemente and Oceanside to the beach fill sites using hopper dredges with pumpout or large cutter suction dredges. Temporary nearshore pipeline and mono buoys would be positioned at about the 30-foot depth contour to permit the dredge to pump each load directly ashore. A hydraulic dredge with multiple booster pumps would pump material onshore through submerged and floating pipelines. Under the 50-foot beach width alternative, which is the recommended plan, 251,000 cubic yards of beach compatible sand would be placed to create an immediate post-construction dry beach width of 76 feet. Up to 26 feet of dry beach width would be distributed from the foreshore to the profile during the equilibration process. This alternative is estimated to take 46 working days to complete. The second beach fill alternative would require approximately 586,000 cubic yards of sand to create a post-construction dry beach width of 171 feet and a post-equilibration dry beach of 115 feet. This alternative is estimated to take 108 working days to complete. Under either action alternative, dredging would be performed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Shore equipment would work 12 hours a day, six days a week. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2012 and, depending upon available funding, maintenance nourishment would begin when the shoreline reaches the base beach width and would return the beach to the 50-foot design width using up to 251,000 cubic yards of additional material. Based on a 50-foot wide beach, and an estimated 12.8 feet/year erosion rate, it is anticipated that a fill would last about six years on average. The estimated initial construction cost of the plan is $11.1 million, for which the federal share is $7.2 million and the non-federal share is $3.9 million. Total periodic nourishment costs would be evenly split and are estimated to be $84.9 million over the 50-year period following initiation of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development and maintenance of the beach would prevent severe erosion from winter storms and damage to adjacent beachfront structures, including the heavily used rail line that runs along the beach through the city. Beach replenishment would maintain or increase tourism with consequential benefit to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Most benthic invertebrates within dredged areas would be killed and discharge of offshore sand onto receiver beaches would bury intertidal invertebrates. Offshore movement of the sand placed on the beach would likely result in significant burial of surfgrass and high value reef habitat that supports kelp beds which are particularly important habitats for many species of fish. Turbidity plumes generated during beach fill operations could interfere with foraging by gulls, terns, pelicans, and cormorants. Dredging at offshore borrow sites could alter nearshore wave conditions with unknown effects on surfing conditions. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-60), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0337D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110285, Volume I--365 pages, Volume II--581 pages, September 2, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Beaches KW - Birds KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reefs KW - Safety KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 2000, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16368623?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+CLEMENTE+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+SAN+CLEMENTE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+CLEMENTE+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+SAN+CLEMENTE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Study on countermeasures for water pollution control in water conservancy and hydropower engineering construction period AN - 920807534; 16226416 AB - Aimed at the problems of a low wastewater disposal rate, serious water resources waste, and loose management, countermeasures for addressing water pollution during the construction period of water conservancy and hydropower engineering are examined based on the experience. Two new wastewater treatment technologies are recommended: the DH high-efficiency wastewater purifier and aluminum electrolytic wastewater treatment, both of which provide a reference for water pollution control during the construction period of water conservancy and hydropower engineering. JF - Water Resources Protection AU - Zhou, Z-M AU - Li, X-B AD - Guizhou Survey and Design Research Institute for Water Resources and Hydropower, Guiyang 550002, China, gzzzm2329@sina.com Y1 - 2011/09// PY - 2011 DA - Sep 2011 SP - 123 EP - 126 VL - 27 IS - 5 SN - 1004-6933, 1004-6933 KW - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; Environment Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts KW - Water Pollution KW - Water conservation KW - Hydroelectric Plants KW - Water resources KW - hydroelectric power KW - Wastewater treatment KW - Water Pollution Control KW - Engineering KW - Waste disposal KW - Construction KW - Hydroelectric power KW - Wastes KW - Water pollution KW - Water pollution control KW - Water management KW - Aluminum KW - Aluminium KW - Construction industry wastes KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Wastewater KW - Water Resources KW - Pollution control KW - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate KW - SW 3040:Wastewater treatment processes KW - AQ 00006:Sewage KW - ENA 09:Land Use & Planning KW - M2 551.5:General (551.5) UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/920807534?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Water+Resources+Protection&rft.atitle=Study+on+countermeasures+for+water+pollution+control+in+water+conservancy+and+hydropower+engineering+construction+period&rft.au=Zhou%2C+Z-M%3BLi%2C+X-B&rft.aulast=Zhou&rft.aufirst=Z-M&rft.date=2011-09-01&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=123&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Water+Resources+Protection&rft.issn=10046933&rft_id=info:doi/10.3969%2Fj.issn.1004-6933.2011.05.028 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-12-11 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Water management; Aluminium; Wastes; Water resources; Wastewater treatment; Water pollution; Pollution control; Water pollution control; Hydroelectric power; Water conservation; Aluminum; Construction industry wastes; hydroelectric power; Waste disposal; Wastewater; Water Pollution; Water Pollution Control; Engineering; Construction; Hydroelectric Plants; Wastewater Treatment; Water Resources DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-6933.2011.05.028 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A multiple watershed field test of hydrogeomorphic functional assessment of headwater streams - Variability in field measurements between independent teams AN - 918059565; 16181433 AB - Ephemeral and intermittent headwater streams are under increasing pressure from disturbance and development. Rapid, repeatable assessment techniques are needed in order to gauge the condition of these stream systems. Several attributes of these headwater streams constrain the use of the most widely used macroinvertebrate or water quality stream assessment techniques. The hydrogeomorphic (HGM) functional assessment is a reference-based alternative technique. To evaluate this alternative, repeated assessments were conducted in eight high-gradient headwaters in West Virginia by four independent teams. Across-site and measurement variance among teams was assessed using a coefficient of variation (CV, expressed as percent). A variability of >50% CV, which suggests less repeatable results, occurred in only 13.8% of measurements, primarily associated with 2 of the 9 variables examined (snag density and substrate size). Between site measurement variance was the greatest at more highly disturbed sample locations, particularly with regard to the large woody debris, tree species richness, and channel bank erosion variables. Variables with the lowest CV were tree diameter, detrital cover, canopy cover, and channel embeddedness. Based on these results, measurements included when applying HGM approach to these streams should focus on direct measurements or directed estimates that yield a large response range across a spectrum of sites while maintaining consistent repeatability among different teams, with special attention paid to their use in highly disturbed sites. JF - Ecological Indicators AU - Berkowitz, Jacob AU - Casper, Andrew F AU - Noble, Chris AD - Wetlands and Coastal Ecology Branch, Environmental Lab, Engineer Research and Development Center, US Army Corps of Engineers, CEERD-EE-W, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, United States, Jacob.F.Berkowitz@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2011/09// PY - 2011 DA - September 2011 SP - 1472 EP - 1475 PB - Elsevier B.V., The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB United Kingdom VL - 11 IS - 5 SN - 1470-160X, 1470-160X KW - Pollution Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Environment Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; Sustainability Science Abstracts; Ecology Abstracts KW - Hydrogeomorphic assessment KW - HGM KW - Field testing KW - Rapid assessment KW - Headwater stream KW - Variability KW - Species Richness KW - Trees KW - Snags KW - Watersheds KW - Water quality KW - Streams KW - Debris KW - Yield KW - Assessments KW - Stream Pollution KW - Canopies KW - Pressure KW - Species richness KW - Headwaters KW - Environmental monitoring KW - USA, West Virginia KW - Channels KW - Erosion KW - Disturbance KW - Environmental conditions KW - Zoobenthos KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - SW 3010:Identification of pollutants KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development KW - M2 551.5:General (551.5) KW - ENA 21:Wildlife KW - Q2 09124:Coastal zone management KW - D 04060:Management and Conservation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918059565?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Ecological+Indicators&rft.atitle=A+multiple+watershed+field+test+of+hydrogeomorphic+functional+assessment+of+headwater+streams+-+Variability+in+field+measurements+between+independent+teams&rft.au=Berkowitz%2C+Jacob%3BCasper%2C+Andrew+F%3BNoble%2C+Chris&rft.aulast=Berkowitz&rft.aufirst=Jacob&rft.date=2011-09-01&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1472&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Ecological+Indicators&rft.issn=1470160X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.ecolind.2011.01.004 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-13 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Environmental monitoring; Species Richness; Canopies; Water quality; Watersheds; Zoobenthos; Environmental conditions; Debris; Streams; Trees; Pressure; Snags; Species richness; Erosion; Channels; Disturbance; Headwaters; Yield; Variability; Assessments; Stream Pollution; USA, West Virginia DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.01.004 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Application of magnetic susceptibility for wetlands delineation AN - 916841595; 2012-016490 AB - Wetlands are natural resources that are protected under federal regulations; therefore, the delineation of wetlands is necessary to ensure their protection. Standard methods used for delineating wetlands can be time consuming, or a wetland could be problematic, i.e., lacking hydrophytic vegetation or hydric soil indicators, or periodically lacking hydrologic indicators. A magnetic susceptibility study could be an additional technique used to aid in the delineation process. A study using magnetic susceptibility was undertaken in central Mississippi to identify the transitional zone or boundary between non-hydric (uplands) and hydric (wetlands) soils. The soils were silt loam with a minor percentage of sand. A survey line that traversed the transitional zone between wetland and upland on each end of the transect was revisited four times during a single year and once two years later. One survey was conducted a few weeks after the winter inundation (moderately wet soil conditions), one was conducted several months after inundation but immediately after some heavy rainfall (moderately wet soil conditions), and two were conducted several weeks or months after inundation or significant rainfall (dry soil conditions). There were measurable differences between the magnetic susceptibility values collected in the upland and wetland regions during each survey. One transitional zone was easily identified using magnetic susceptibility, exhibiting a sharp decrease in susceptibility values between the upland and wetland. The other transitional zone contained an intermediate ridge, which made demarcation of the zone less obvious. The measured magnetic susceptibility values were comparable for the respective upland, transition, and wetland regions, and the characteristics of the curves were similar for all time-periods. Overall, magnetic susceptibility proved to be a successful method for delineating a wetland in this area. JF - Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics AU - Simms, Janet E AU - Lobred, Anthony R Y1 - 2011/09// PY - 2011 DA - September 2011 SP - 105 EP - 114 PB - Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Englewood, CO VL - 16 IS - 3 SN - 1083-1363, 1083-1363 KW - United States KW - soils KW - geophysical surveys KW - Mississippi KW - geophysical methods KW - magnetic methods KW - mapping KW - atmospheric precipitation KW - magnetic properties KW - wetlands KW - magnetic susceptibility KW - hydric soils KW - surveys KW - water content KW - seasonal variations KW - Hinds County Mississippi KW - rain KW - Eh KW - 20:Applied geophysics KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916841595?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.atitle=Application+of+magnetic+susceptibility+for+wetlands+delineation&rft.au=Simms%2C+Janet+E%3BLobred%2C+Anthony+R&rft.aulast=Simms&rft.aufirst=Janet&rft.date=2011-09-01&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=105&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.issn=10831363&rft_id=info:doi/10.2113%2FJEEG16.3.105 L2 - http://jeeg.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 44 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - atmospheric precipitation; Eh; geophysical methods; geophysical surveys; Hinds County Mississippi; hydric soils; magnetic methods; magnetic properties; magnetic susceptibility; mapping; Mississippi; rain; seasonal variations; soils; surveys; United States; water content; wetlands DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2113/JEEG16.3.105 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Two-dimensional mantle convection simulations using an internal state variable model; the role of a history dependent rheology on mantle convection AN - 904460887; 2011-102590 AB - We apply the Bammann inelastic internal state variable model (BIISV) to a mantle convection code TERRA2D to investigate the influence of a history dependent solid mechanics model on mantle convection. We compare and contrast the general purpose BIISV model to the commonly used power-law model. We implemented the BIISV model using a radial return algorithm and tested it against previously published mantle convection simulation results for verification. Model constants for the BIISV are used based on experimental stress-strain behaviour found in the literature. After implementation we give illustrative simulation examples where the BIISV produces hardened areas on the cold thermal boundary layer that the power-law model cannot produce. The hardened boundary layers divert material downward, giving a plausible reason for the current subduction zones that are present on the Earth. Abstract Copyright (2011), RAS. JF - Geophysical Journal International AU - Sherburn, J A AU - Horstemeyer, M F AU - Bammann, D J AU - Baumgardner, J R Y1 - 2011/09// PY - 2011 DA - September 2011 SP - 945 EP - 962 PB - Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of The Royal Astronomical Society, the Deutsche Geophysikalische Gesellschaft and the European Geophysical Society VL - 186 IS - 3 SN - 0956-540X, 0956-540X KW - plumes KW - diffusion KW - transient phenomena KW - rheology KW - creep KW - mantle KW - algorithms KW - convection KW - simulation KW - plasticity KW - two-dimensional models KW - 18:Solid-earth geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/904460887?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Geophysical+Journal+International&rft.atitle=Two-dimensional+mantle+convection+simulations+using+an+internal+state+variable+model%3B+the+role+of+a+history+dependent+rheology+on+mantle+convection&rft.au=Sherburn%2C+J+A%3BHorstemeyer%2C+M+F%3BBammann%2C+D+J%3BBaumgardner%2C+J+R&rft.aulast=Sherburn&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2011-09-01&rft.volume=186&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=945&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geophysical+Journal+International&rft.issn=0956540X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Fj.1365-246X.2011.05095.x L2 - http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0956-540X LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, United Kingdom N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 45 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 3 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - algorithms; convection; creep; diffusion; mantle; plasticity; plumes; rheology; simulation; transient phenomena; two-dimensional models DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05095.x ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: Ten years of applications and trends AN - 899145367; 15583452 AB - Decision-making in environmental projects requires consideration of trade-offs between socio-political, environmental, and economic impacts and is often complicated by various stakeholder views. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) emerged as a formal methodology to face available technical information and stakeholder values to support decisions in many fields and can be especially valuable in environmental decision making. This study reviews environmental applications of MCDA. Over 300 papers published between 2000 and 2009 reporting MCDA applications in the environmental field were identified through a series of queries in the Web of Science database. The papers were classified by their environmental application area, decision or intervention type. In addition, the papers were also classified by the MCDA methods used in the analysis (analytic hierarchy process, multi-attribute utility theory, and outranking). The results suggest that there is a significant growth in environmental applications of MCDA over the last decade across all environmental application areas. Multiple MCDA tools have been successfully used for environmental applications. Even though the use of the specific methods and tools varies in different application areas and geographic regions, our review of a few papers where several methods were used in parallel with the same problem indicates that recommended course of action does not vary significantly with the method applied. JF - Science of the Total Environment AU - Huang, Ivy B AU - Keisler, Jeffrey AU - Linkov, Igor Y1 - 2011/09/01/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Sep 01 SP - 3578 EP - 3594 PB - Elsevier B.V., P.O. Box 211 Amsterdam 1000 AE Netherlands VL - 409 IS - 19 SN - 0048-9697, 0048-9697 KW - Pollution Abstracts; Environment Abstracts KW - Development projects KW - Reviews KW - intervention KW - Economics KW - stakeholders KW - ENA 06:Food & Drugs KW - P 9999:GENERAL POLLUTION UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/899145367?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Apollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Science+of+the+Total+Environment&rft.atitle=Multi-criteria+decision+analysis+in+environmental+sciences%3A+Ten+years+of+applications+and+trends&rft.au=Huang%2C+Ivy+B%3BKeisler%2C+Jeffrey%3BLinkov%2C+Igor&rft.aulast=Huang&rft.aufirst=Ivy&rft.date=2011-09-01&rft.volume=409&rft.issue=19&rft.spage=3578&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Science+of+the+Total+Environment&rft.issn=00489697&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.scitotenv.2011.06.022 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - Number of references - 2 N1 - Last updated - 2016-02-29 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Development projects; intervention; Reviews; Economics; stakeholders DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.06.022 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Promoting environmental sustainability via an expert elicitation process AN - 874193047; 4207516 AB - Environmental sustainability (ES) planning was applied to the 981-mile, commercially navigable Ohio River. Navigation improvement needs were identified within the broad study along with actions to restore aquatic and riparian ecological resources to a higher state of sustainability. The actions were identified via an Expert Elicitation Process (EEP) involving aquatic and riparian/terrestrial experts knowledgeable of Ohio River resources. The received information was synthesized into goals for the selected resources (Valued Ecosystem Components - or VECs), actions or measures to attain the goals, and monitoring to evaluate conditions. Finally, 26 types of ES actions were identified and classified into three ES alternatives. These alternatives were then evaluated relative to key decision criteria, and such evaluations, based on pertinent decision criteria, were also conducted for four navigation improvement alternatives. Finally, the best combination of ES and navigation alternatives was identified. The key lessons derived from this use of EEP were that: (1) EEP can support the preliminary identification of ES measures; however, more detailed study of specific designs and cost evaluations will be necessary; (2) the method promotes collaboration between key scientists and policymakers from governmental agencies and private sectors, and such collaboration will ultimately provide the foundation for implementation of sustainability actions; and (3) an effective EEP does not occur by accident, it requires careful planning, implementation, and documentation. All rights reserved, Elsevier JF - Environmental impact assessment review AU - Swor, T AU - Canter, L AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Y1 - 2011/09// PY - 2011 DA - Sep 2011 SP - 506 EP - 514 VL - 31 IS - 5 SN - 0195-9255, 0195-9255 KW - Political Science KW - Evaluation KW - Resource management KW - Environmental impact studies KW - Environmental planning KW - Policy making KW - Environmental management KW - Environmental policy KW - Sustainability UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/874193047?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aibss&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+impact+assessment+review&rft.atitle=Promoting+environmental+sustainability+via+an+expert+elicitation+process&rft.au=Swor%2C+T%3BCanter%2C+L&rft.aulast=Swor&rft.aufirst=T&rft.date=2011-09-01&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=506&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+impact+assessment+review&rft.issn=01959255&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.eiar.2011.01.014 LA - English DB - International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) N1 - Date revised - 2013-06-12 N1 - Last updated - 2013-09-16 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - 12434; 4551; 4335; 10961 7625; 4325 3851 971; 9625 9628; 4336 5574 10472; 4330 7625 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2011.01.014 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Solving the nonstationary Richards equation with adaptive hp-FEM AN - 1686059654; 2015-050398 AB - This paper examines the potential of the adaptive hp-FEM method for the numerical solution of time-dependent variably saturated Darcian flow problems described by the Richards equation. The method is illustrated on three model problems: a benchmark with known exact solution, groundwater seepage into a dry lysimeter box with time-dependent boundary conditions, and capillary barrier behavior under an intense infiltration. In the second part of the paper we present the weak formulation of the Richards equation for the Newton's and Picard's methods, give a brief overview of adaptive hp-FEM with emphasis on aspects that are usually not discussed in the literature, and we briefly introduce the open source adaptive hp-FEM library HERMES that was used to generate numerical results for this paper. All computations that we present are easily reproducible. Abstract Copyright (2011) Elsevier, B.V. JF - Advances in Water Resources AU - Solin, Pavel AU - Kuraz, Michal Y1 - 2011/09// PY - 2011 DA - September 2011 SP - 1062 EP - 1081 PB - Elsevier, Oxford VL - 34 IS - 9 SN - 0309-1708, 0309-1708 KW - hydrology KW - functions KW - numerical analysis KW - unsaturated zone KW - capillarity KW - convection KW - seepage KW - boundary conditions KW - ground water KW - geometry KW - fractures KW - finite element analysis KW - sedimentary rocks KW - errors KW - claystone KW - saturation KW - Richards equation KW - infiltration KW - interfaces KW - hydrodynamics KW - hydraulic conductivity KW - lysimeters KW - clastic rocks KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1686059654?accountid=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=Advances+in+Water+Resources&rft.atitle=Solving+the+nonstationary+Richards+equation+with+adaptive+hp-FEM&rft.au=Solin%2C+Pavel%3BKuraz%2C+Michal&rft.aulast=Solin&rft.aufirst=Pavel&rft.date=2011-09-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1062&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Advances+in+Water+Resources&rft.issn=03091708&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.advwatres.2011.04.020 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03091708 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2015, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 49 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 3 tables N1 - Last updated - 2015-06-05 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - boundary conditions; capillarity; clastic rocks; claystone; convection; errors; finite element analysis; fractures; functions; geometry; ground water; hydraulic conductivity; hydrodynamics; hydrology; infiltration; interfaces; lysimeters; numerical analysis; Richards equation; saturation; sedimentary rocks; seepage; unsaturated zone DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2011.04.020 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A two-grid method for coupled free flow with porous media flow AN - 1686059504; 2015-050400 AB - This paper presents a two-grid method for solving systems of partial differential equations modelling incompressible free flow coupled with porous media flow. This work considers both the coupled Stokes and Darcy as well as the coupled Navier-Stokes and Darcy problems. The numerical schemes proposed are based on combinations of the continuous finite element method and the discontinuous Galerkin method. Numerical errors and convergence rates for solutions obtained from the two-grid method are presented. CPU times for the two-grid algorithm are shown to be significantly less than those obtained by solving the fully coupled problem. Abstract Copyright (2011) Elsevier, B.V. JF - Advances in Water Resources AU - Chidyagwai, Prince AU - Riviere, Beatrice Y1 - 2011/09// PY - 2011 DA - September 2011 SP - 1113 EP - 1123 PB - Elsevier, Oxford VL - 34 IS - 9 SN - 0309-1708, 0309-1708 KW - Galerkin method KW - numerical models KW - Darcy's law KW - data processing KW - coupling KW - rates KW - porous materials KW - equations KW - flows KW - finite element analysis KW - errors KW - Navier-Stokes equations KW - hydrodynamics KW - algorithms KW - decoupling KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1686059504?accountid=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=Advances+in+Water+Resources&rft.atitle=A+two-grid+method+for+coupled+free+flow+with+porous+media+flow&rft.au=Chidyagwai%2C+Prince%3BRiviere%2C+Beatrice&rft.aulast=Chidyagwai&rft.aufirst=Prince&rft.date=2011-09-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1113&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Advances+in+Water+Resources&rft.issn=03091708&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.advwatres.2011.04.010 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03091708 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2015, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 34 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 16 tables N1 - Last updated - 2015-06-05 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - algorithms; coupling; Darcy's law; data processing; decoupling; equations; errors; finite element analysis; flows; Galerkin method; hydrodynamics; Navier-Stokes equations; numerical models; porous materials; rates DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2011.04.010 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - DuMu (super x) ; DUNE for multi-(phase,component,scale,physics,...) flow and transport in porous media AN - 1686059484; 2015-050399 AB - DuMu (super x) is a free and open-source simulator for flow and transport processes in porous media, based on the Distributed and Unified Numerics Environment (DUNE). Its main intention is to provide a sustainable and consistent framework for the implementation and application of model concepts, constitutive relations, discretizations, and solvers. The paper provides an overview of DuMu (super x) with the focus on software-related aspects. Selected examples highlight the multi-scale and the parallel capabilities. Abstract Copyright (2011) Elsevier, B.V. JF - Advances in Water Resources AU - Flemisch, B AU - Darcis, M AU - Erbertseder, K AU - Faigle, B AU - Lauser, A AU - Mosthaf, K AU - Muething, S AU - Nuske, P AU - Tatomir, A AU - Wolff, M AU - Helmig, R Y1 - 2011/09// PY - 2011 DA - September 2011 SP - 1102 EP - 1112 PB - Elsevier, Oxford VL - 34 IS - 9 SN - 0309-1708, 0309-1708 KW - fractured materials KW - data processing KW - coupling KW - simulation KW - ground water KW - carbon dioxide KW - fractures KW - transport KW - interfaces KW - discretization KW - algorithms KW - elasticity KW - carbon sequestration KW - numerical models KW - numerical analysis KW - injection KW - porous materials KW - porosity KW - boundary conditions KW - geometry KW - aquifers KW - computer programs KW - saturation KW - multiphase flow KW - efficiency KW - permeability KW - storage KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1686059484?accountid=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=Advances+in+Water+Resources&rft.atitle=DuMu+%28super+x%29+%3B+DUNE+for+multi-%28phase%2Ccomponent%2Cscale%2Cphysics%2C...%29+flow+and+transport+in+porous+media&rft.au=Flemisch%2C+B%3BDarcis%2C+M%3BErbertseder%2C+K%3BFaigle%2C+B%3BLauser%2C+A%3BMosthaf%2C+K%3BMuething%2C+S%3BNuske%2C+P%3BTatomir%2C+A%3BWolff%2C+M%3BHelmig%2C+R&rft.aulast=Flemisch&rft.aufirst=B&rft.date=2011-09-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1102&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Advances+in+Water+Resources&rft.issn=03091708&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.advwatres.2011.03.007 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03091708 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2015, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 49 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 3 tables N1 - Last updated - 2015-06-05 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - algorithms; aquifers; boundary conditions; carbon dioxide; carbon sequestration; computer programs; coupling; data processing; discretization; efficiency; elasticity; fractured materials; fractures; geometry; ground water; injection; interfaces; multiphase flow; numerical analysis; numerical models; permeability; porosity; porous materials; saturation; simulation; storage; transport DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2011.03.007 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Parallel distributed computing using Python AN - 1686059448; 2015-050401 AB - This work presents two software components aimed to relieve the costs of accessing high-performance parallel computing resources within a Python programming environment: MPI for Python and PETSc for Python. MPI for Python is a general-purpose Python package that provides bindings for the Message Passing Interface (MPI) standard using any back-end MPI implementation. Its facilities allow parallel Python programs to easily exploit multiple processors using the message passing paradigm. PETSc for Python provides access to the Portable, Extensible Toolkit for Scientific Computation (PETSc) libraries. Its facilities allow sequential and parallel Python applications to exploit state of the art algorithms and data structures readily available in PETSc for the solution of large-scale problems in science and engineering. MPI for Python and PETSc for Python are fully integrated to PETSc-FEM, an MPI and PETSc based parallel, multiphysics, finite elements code developed at CIMEC laboratory. This software infrastructure supports research activities related to simulation of fluid flows with applications ranging from the design of microfluidic devices for biochemical analysis to modeling of large-scale stream/aquifer interactions. Abstract Copyright (2011) Elsevier, B.V. JF - Advances in Water Resources AU - Dalcin, Lisandro D AU - Paz, Rodrigo R AU - Kler, Pablo A AU - Cosimo, Alejandro Y1 - 2011/09// PY - 2011 DA - September 2011 SP - 1124 EP - 1139 PB - Elsevier, Oxford VL - 34 IS - 9 SN - 0309-1708, 0309-1708 KW - computer languages KW - data processing KW - coupling KW - digital terrain models KW - simulation KW - ground water KW - finite element analysis KW - saturated zone KW - topography KW - interfaces KW - hydrodynamics KW - algorithms KW - hydrology KW - numerical models KW - rainfall KW - biochemistry KW - surface water KW - fluid flow KW - mathematical models KW - cost KW - aquifers KW - computer programs KW - parallel processing KW - streams KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1686059448?accountid=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=Advances+in+Water+Resources&rft.atitle=Parallel+distributed+computing+using+Python&rft.au=Dalcin%2C+Lisandro+D%3BPaz%2C+Rodrigo+R%3BKler%2C+Pablo+A%3BCosimo%2C+Alejandro&rft.aulast=Dalcin&rft.aufirst=Lisandro&rft.date=2011-09-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1124&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Advances+in+Water+Resources&rft.issn=03091708&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.advwatres.2011.04.013 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03091708 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2015, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 49 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. geol. sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2015-06-05 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - algorithms; aquifers; biochemistry; computer languages; computer programs; cost; coupling; data processing; digital terrain models; finite element analysis; fluid flow; ground water; hydrodynamics; hydrology; interfaces; mathematical models; numerical models; parallel processing; rainfall; saturated zone; simulation; streams; surface water; topography DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2011.04.013 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Using the extended finite element method for simulation of transient well leakage in multilayer aquifers AN - 1686059345; 2015-050405 AB - The extended finite element (XFEM) is applied to the problem of transient leakage from abandoned or free-flowing artesian wells in perforated aquifer-aquitard systems. To more accurately capture the singularities in potentiometric head at the wells, the standard linear finite element basis is locally augmented with asymptotic analytical solutions which enable more accurate calculations of leakage rates between aquifers. Highly accurate flux estimates are obtained without the need for higher mesh resolution near wells. Simulations are carried out to test both the accuracy and convergence properties of the XFEM implementation, and the XFEM results are compared to those of a high-resolution standard finite element model. It is seen that for the type of singularity-driven problem posed here, the standard FEM is unable to resolve leakage rates without very fine discretization, but that the XFEM performs robustly with fewer degrees of freedom. The impact of aquifer geometric heterogeneity on leakage rates is assessed and seen to be an important factor in determining total leakage. It is demonstrated that the XFEM may be a valuable tool in many water resources applications where small-scale effects can impact global system behavior. Abstract Copyright (2011) Elsevier, B.V. JF - Advances in Water Resources AU - Craig, James R AU - Gracie, Robert Y1 - 2011/09// PY - 2011 DA - September 2011 SP - 1207 EP - 1214 PB - Elsevier, Oxford VL - 34 IS - 9 SN - 0309-1708, 0309-1708 KW - high-resolution methods KW - numerical analysis KW - injection KW - fluid flow KW - aquitards KW - simulation KW - seepage KW - layered materials KW - ground water KW - geometry KW - aquifers KW - case studies KW - finite element analysis KW - artesian waters KW - hydraulic head KW - transient phenomena KW - abandoned water wells KW - thickness KW - discretization KW - heterogeneity KW - water wells KW - potentiometry KW - accuracy KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1686059345?accountid=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=Advances+in+Water+Resources&rft.atitle=Using+the+extended+finite+element+method+for+simulation+of+transient+well+leakage+in+multilayer+aquifers&rft.au=Craig%2C+James+R%3BGracie%2C+Robert&rft.aulast=Craig&rft.aufirst=James&rft.date=2011-09-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1207&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Advances+in+Water+Resources&rft.issn=03091708&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.advwatres.2011.04.004 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03091708 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2015, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 25 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 3 tables N1 - Last updated - 2015-06-05 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - abandoned water wells; accuracy; aquifers; aquitards; artesian waters; case studies; discretization; finite element analysis; fluid flow; geometry; ground water; heterogeneity; high-resolution methods; hydraulic head; injection; layered materials; numerical analysis; potentiometry; seepage; simulation; thickness; transient phenomena; water wells DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2011.04.004 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - New computational methods and software tools AN - 1686059266; 2015-050397 JF - Advances in Water Resources Y1 - 2011/09// PY - 2011 DA - September 2011 SP - 1059 EP - 1214 PB - Elsevier, Oxford VL - 34 IS - 9 SN - 0309-1708, 0309-1708 KW - computer programs KW - numerical models KW - mathematical methods KW - surface water KW - data processing KW - mathematical models KW - water resources KW - simulation KW - ground water KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1686059266?accountid=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=Advances+in+Water+Resources&rft.atitle=New+computational+methods+and+software+tools&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-09-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1059&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Advances+in+Water+Resources&rft.issn=03091708&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.advwatres.2011.08.003 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03091708 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2015, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - SuppNotes - Individual papers within scope are cited separately N1 - Last updated - 2015-06-05 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - computer programs; data processing; ground water; mathematical methods; mathematical models; numerical models; simulation; surface water; water resources DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2011.08.003 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A note on variational multiscale methods for high-contrast heterogeneous porous media flows with rough source terms AN - 1686059169; 2015-050403 AB - In this short note, we discuss variational multiscale methods for solving porous media flows in high-contrast heterogeneous media with rough source terms. Our objective is to separate, as much as possible, subgrid effects induced by the media properties from those due to heterogeneous source terms. For this reason, enriched coarse spaces designed for high-contrast multiscale problems are used to represent the effects of heterogeneities of the media. Furthermore, rough source terms are captured via auxiliary correction equations that appear in the formulation of variational multiscale methods [23]. These auxiliary equations are localized and one can use additive or multiplicative constructions for the subgrid corrections as discussed in the current paper. Our preliminary numerical results show that one can capture the effects due to both spatial heterogeneities in the coefficients (such as permeability field) and source terms (e.g., due to singular well terms) in one iteration. We test the cases for both smooth source terms and rough source terms and show that with the multiplicative correction, the numerical approximations are more accurate compared to the additive correction. Abstract Copyright (2011) Elsevier, B.V. JF - Advances in Water Resources AU - Calo, Victor AU - Efendiev, Yalchin AU - Galvis, Juan Y1 - 2011/09// PY - 2011 DA - September 2011 SP - 1177 EP - 1185 PB - Elsevier, Oxford VL - 34 IS - 9 SN - 0309-1708, 0309-1708 KW - numerical models KW - numerical analysis KW - roughness KW - fluid flow KW - porous materials KW - equations KW - simulation KW - finite element analysis KW - scale models KW - errors KW - heterogeneous materials KW - hydrodynamics KW - discretization KW - hydraulic conductivity KW - heterogeneity KW - permeability KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1686059169?accountid=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=Advances+in+Water+Resources&rft.atitle=A+note+on+variational+multiscale+methods+for+high-contrast+heterogeneous+porous+media+flows+with+rough+source+terms&rft.au=Calo%2C+Victor%3BEfendiev%2C+Yalchin%3BGalvis%2C+Juan&rft.aulast=Calo&rft.aufirst=Victor&rft.date=2011-09-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1177&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Advances+in+Water+Resources&rft.issn=03091708&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.advwatres.2010.12.011 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03091708 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2015, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 35 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 7 tables N1 - Last updated - 2015-06-05 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - discretization; equations; errors; finite element analysis; fluid flow; heterogeneity; heterogeneous materials; hydraulic conductivity; hydrodynamics; numerical analysis; numerical models; permeability; porous materials; roughness; scale models; simulation DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2010.12.011 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Computational issues and applications of line-elements to model subsurface flow governed by the modified Helmholtz equation AN - 1686059144; 2015-050404 AB - Two new approaches are presented for the accurate computation of the potential due to line elements that satisfy the modified Helmholtz equation with complex parameters. The first approach is based on fundamental solutions in elliptical coordinates and results in products of Mathieu functions. The second approach is based on the integration of modified Bessel functions. Both approaches allow evaluation of the potential at any distance from the element. The computational approaches are applied to model transient flow with the Laplace transform analytic element method. The Laplace domain solution is computed using a combination of point elements and the presented line elements. The time domain solution is obtained through a numerical inversion. Two applications are presented to transient flow fields, which could not be modeled with the Laplace transform analytic element method prior to this work. The first application concerns transient single-aquifer flow to wells near impermeable walls modeled with line-doublets. The second application concerns transient two-aquifer flow to a well near a stream modeled with line-sinks. Abstract Copyright (2011) Elsevier, B.V. JF - Advances in Water Resources AU - Bakker, Mark AU - Kuhlman, Kristopher L Y1 - 2011/09// PY - 2011 DA - September 2011 SP - 1186 EP - 1194 PB - Elsevier, Oxford VL - 34 IS - 9 SN - 0309-1708, 0309-1708 KW - functions KW - numerical analysis KW - sinks KW - pumping KW - injection KW - fluid flow KW - inverse problem KW - equations KW - Laplace transformations KW - ground water KW - aquifers KW - drawdown KW - hydraulic head KW - transient phenomena KW - streams KW - algorithms KW - water wells KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1686059144?accountid=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=Advances+in+Water+Resources&rft.atitle=Computational+issues+and+applications+of+line-elements+to+model+subsurface+flow+governed+by+the+modified+Helmholtz+equation&rft.au=Bakker%2C+Mark%3BKuhlman%2C+Kristopher+L&rft.aulast=Bakker&rft.aufirst=Mark&rft.date=2011-09-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1186&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Advances+in+Water+Resources&rft.issn=03091708&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.advwatres.2011.02.008 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03091708 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2015, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-06-05 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - algorithms; aquifers; drawdown; equations; fluid flow; functions; ground water; hydraulic head; injection; inverse problem; Laplace transformations; numerical analysis; pumping; sinks; streams; transient phenomena; water wells DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2011.02.008 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Hybrid models of reactive transport in porous and fractured media AN - 1686055915; 2015-050402 AB - Darcy-scale models of flow and transport in porous media often fail to describe experimentally observed phenomena, while their pore-scale counterparts are accurate but can be computationally prohibitive. Most numerical multiscale models, which seek to combine these two descriptions, require empirical closures and/or assumptions about the behavior of pore-scale quantities at the continuum (Darcy) scale. We present a general formulation of an iterative hybrid numerical method that links the pore and continuum scales without resorting to such approximations. The algorithm treats the fluxes exchanged at the internal boundaries between pore- and continuum-scale domains as unknown, and allows for iteratively determined boundary conditions to be applied at the pore-scale in order to guarantee flux continuity. While the algorithm proposed is general, we use it to model transport in a fracture with chemically reactive walls. Results demonstrate significant improvement upon standard continuum-scale formulations. Abstract Copyright (2011) Elsevier, B.V. JF - Advances in Water Resources AU - Battiato, Ilenia AU - Tartakovsky, Daniel M AU - Tartakovsky, Alexandre M AU - Scheibe, T D Y1 - 2011/09// PY - 2011 DA - September 2011 SP - 1140 EP - 1150 PB - Elsevier, Oxford VL - 34 IS - 9 SN - 0309-1708, 0309-1708 KW - fractured materials KW - dispersivity KW - domains KW - coupling KW - simulation KW - fractures KW - transport KW - reactive transport KW - hydrodynamics KW - discretization KW - breakthrough curves KW - algorithms KW - heterogeneity KW - Peclet number KW - concentration KW - diffusion KW - numerical models KW - iterative methods KW - numerical analysis KW - fluid flow KW - porous materials KW - equations KW - advection KW - porosity KW - boundary conditions KW - volume KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1686055915?accountid=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=Advances+in+Water+Resources&rft.atitle=Hybrid+models+of+reactive+transport+in+porous+and+fractured+media&rft.au=Battiato%2C+Ilenia%3BTartakovsky%2C+Daniel+M%3BTartakovsky%2C+Alexandre+M%3BScheibe%2C+T+D&rft.aulast=Battiato&rft.aufirst=Ilenia&rft.date=2011-09-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1140&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Advances+in+Water+Resources&rft.issn=03091708&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.advwatres.2011.01.012 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03091708 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2015, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 24 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables N1 - Last updated - 2015-06-05 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - advection; algorithms; boundary conditions; breakthrough curves; concentration; coupling; diffusion; discretization; dispersivity; domains; equations; fluid flow; fractured materials; fractures; heterogeneity; hydrodynamics; iterative methods; numerical analysis; numerical models; Peclet number; porosity; porous materials; reactive transport; simulation; transport; volume DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2011.01.012 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 14] T2 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159467; 15022-3_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894159467?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 14] T2 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159456; 15022-3_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894159456?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 14] T2 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159445; 15022-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894159445?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 14] T2 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159431; 15022-3_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894159431?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 14] T2 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159399; 15022-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894159399?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 14] T2 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159383; 15022-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894159383?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 14] T2 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159374; 15022-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894159374?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 20 of 28] T2 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894159349; 15018-9_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/894159349?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 19 of 28] T2 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894159338; 15018-9_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/894159338?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 18 of 28] T2 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894159326; 15018-9_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/894159326?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 17 of 28] T2 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894159313; 15018-9_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/894159313?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 14] T2 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158826; 15022-3_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894158826?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 14] T2 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158821; 15022-3_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894158821?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 14] T2 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158817; 15022-3_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894158817?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 14] T2 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158810; 15022-3_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894158810?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 10 of 28] T2 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894158803; 15018-9_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/894158803?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 9 of 28] T2 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894158794; 15018-9_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/894158794?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 8 of 28] T2 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894158774; 15018-9_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/894158774?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 7 of 28] T2 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894158764; 15018-9_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/894158764?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 16 of 28] T2 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894158752; 15018-9_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/894158752?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 6 of 28] T2 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894158737; 15018-9_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/894158737?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 15 of 28] T2 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894158733; 15018-9_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/894158733?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 25 of 28] T2 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894158729; 15018-9_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/894158729?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 14 of 28] T2 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894158720; 15018-9_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/894158720?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 5 of 28] T2 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894158711; 15018-9_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/894158711?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 24 of 28] T2 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894158708; 15018-9_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/894158708?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 14] T2 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158702; 15022-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894158702?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 13 of 28] T2 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894158700; 15018-9_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/894158700?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 4 of 28] T2 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894158684; 15018-9_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/894158684?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 23 of 28] T2 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894158683; 15018-9_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/894158683?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 12 of 28] T2 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894158681; 15018-9_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/894158681?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 14] T2 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158679; 15022-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894158679?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 3 of 28] T2 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894158677; 15018-9_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/894158677?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 22 of 28] T2 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894158672; 15018-9_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/894158672?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 2 of 28] T2 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894158661; 15018-9_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/894158661?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 28 of 28] T2 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894158658; 15018-9_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/894158658?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 21 of 28] T2 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894158655; 15018-9_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/894158655?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 11 of 28] T2 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894158654; 15018-9_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/894158654?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 14] T2 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158652; 15022-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894158652?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SALTON+SEA+SPECIES+CONSERVATION+HABITAT+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 27 of 28] T2 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894158645; 15018-9_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/894158645?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 28] T2 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894158641; 15018-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/894158641?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 26 of 28] T2 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 894158596; 15018-9_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/894158596?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH I-25 FROM DENVER TO WELLINGTON, COLORADO. AN - 893260199; 15030 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to 61 miles of the Interstate 25 (I-25) corridor from Denver to the Fort Collins/Wellington area in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld counties, Colorado are proposed. I-25 serves as the primary north-south spine of the regional transportation system and constitutes a major link in the Western Transportation Trade Network, a system of highway and rail routes through 14 western states. Major population centers in the study area include Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland, and communities in the northern portion of the Denver metropolitan area. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. The three multi-modal build packages (Package A, Package B, and the preferred alternative) consist of highway and transit improvements. The preferred alternative would combine elements presented in Packages A and B and would include multimodal improvements on multiple corridors. I-25 would be widened with general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes (TELs) and substandard interchanges would be reconstructed or upgraded to accommodate future travel needs. The preferred alternative also includes commuter rail transit service from Fort Collins to the anticipated FasTracks North Metro end-of-line. Service to Denver would travel through Longmont and along the FasTracks North Metro Corridor. A connection to Boulder would also be made with a transfer to Northwest Rail at the Sugar Mill Station in Longmont. Nine commuter rail stations and a commuter transit maintenance facility would be included. The commuter rail would consist of a single track with occasional passing tracks at four locations and the design includes a maintenance road where existing BNSF railroad track would be used between Longmont and Fort Collins. Express bus service would operate in the TEL to connect northern Colorado communities to downtown Denver and Denver International Airport and would serve 13 stations along Harmony Road, US 34, and I-25. Commuter bus service along US 85 would connect Greeley with downtown Denver with five stops at the communities along the route. A bus maintenance facility would be constructed to accommodate both express buses and commuter buses. Capital costs for implementation of the preferred alternative are estimated in 2009 dollars at $2.18 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide modal alternatives to travelers, correct geometric deficiencies, and improve safety, mobility, and accessibility by replacing aging and obsolete infrastructure. Travel times would be shortened by 39 to 63 minutes, depending on the mode of transportation. Traffic volumes would be reduced on regional arterial streets by 5,000 to 25,000 vehicles per day. Air pollutant and noise emissions within the corridor would be kept in check or decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would displace 51 residences and 23 businesses. Construction would impact 18.2 acres of wetlands, 13 acres of floodplain, 1.9 acres of terrestrial habitat, and 1.5 acres of aquatic habitat. Listed species would be affected across 341 acres; most of these impacts would involve bald eagle foraging habitat and black-tailed prairie dog colonies. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 840 sensitive receptors; mitigation could be achieved in seven areas. Transit-generated noise would result in impacts to 697 residences and operational vibration would affect 40 residences. Four archaeological and historic properties and six parks or recreational properties would be affected. Hazardous materials could be encountered at up to 87 sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0456D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 1100271, Volume 1--1,442 pages, Volume 2 (Appendices)-- 1,188 pages, Volume 3 (Appendices)--1,240 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-08-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/893260199?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+I-25+FROM+DENVER+TO+WELLINGTON%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=NORTH+I-25+FROM+DENVER+TO+WELLINGTON%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Boulder, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSSELL STREET / SOUTH THIRD STREET, MISSOULA COUNTY, MONTANA. AN - 16386506; 15023 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of 1.5 miles of Russell Street and one mile of South 3rd Street in Missoula, Montana is proposed. The project area includes Russell Street from the intersection at West Broadway Street south to Mount Avenue/South 14th Street, and South 3rd Street from Reserve Street east to Russell Street. Currently, Russell Street varies in width from two to four lanes, including turn lanes at some intersections, and includes a two-lane bridge over the Clark Fork River. South 3rd Street varies in width but generally includes one travel lane in each direction and turn lanes at intersections. Four Russell Street alternatives and five South 3rd Street alternatives, including No Build Alternatives, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative for Russell Street (Alternative 4) would provide for four travel lanes and a center turn lane or median. On South 3rd Street, the preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide two travel lanes and a center turn lane. Major intersections on Russell Street and South 3rd Street would be signalized. The existing Russell Street Bridge would be demolished and replaced at the same general location. The project would also include restriction of River Road and Harlem, Kern, and Longstaff streets to right-in and right-out only connections to Russell Street; realignment of Lawrence and Addison streets to right-angle intersections with Russell Street; and realignment of Knowles Street slightly to the north to match South 11th Street on the west. The Bitterroot Branch and Milwaukee Corridor trail crossings would be placed under Russell Street. The bridge reconstruction would extend the Shady Grove Trail westward under the north end of the bridge and include connections to the sidewalks on both sides of Russell Street. The alternatives include sidewalks, bike lanes, boulevard landscaping, curb-and-gutter drainage systems, and bus pullouts. Costs of the preferred alternatives for Russell Street and South 3rd Street are estimated in 2009 dollars at $45 million and $11.4 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safety and mobility improvements, the project would significantly improve the cityscape's visual aesthetics and reduce vehicle emissions due to smoother operations. Bicycle and pedestrian access would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative for Russell Street, 4.6 acres of new rights-of-way development would result in the displacement 11 residences, 10 commercial buildings, and six historic properties. Kern Park and Hart Park would also be impacted. Under the preferred alternative for South 3rd Street, 2.6 acres of new rights-of-way development would result in the displacement three commercial buildings. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0461D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110264, 835 pages and maps, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MT-011-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Demolition KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Visual Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Montana KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities 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/16386506?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUSSELL+STREET+%2F+SOUTH+THIRD+STREET%2C+MISSOULA+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=RUSSELL+STREET+%2F+SOUTH+THIRD+STREET%2C+MISSOULA+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Helena, Montana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSTOWN PARKWAY EXTENSION, NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE NORTH FORK ST. LUCIE RIVER, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 16385384; 15018 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the existing Crosstown Parkway by approximately two miles, from Manth Lane on the west, across the North Fork St. Lucie River (NFSLR) to US 1 on the east, in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered on the north by Fallon Drive, on the south by Thornhill Drive, on the west by Manth Lane, and on the east by US 1. The two existing crossings of the NFSLR at Port St. Lucie Boulevard and Prima Vista Boulevard are experiencing delays and will not be able to meet the projected travel demand across the NFSLR in the future. Forecasts indicate that the combined traffic volume crossing the NFSLR will increase from 104,680 vehicles in 2008 to 156,000 in 2037. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative, a transportation systems management alternative, a multimodal alternative, and six build alternatives which include a bridge over the NFSLR. Alternative 2A would connect Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR to Veterans Memorial Parkway (formerly known as Midport Road) east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connect with US 1 at the existing signalized intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway/Walton Road. Alternative 2D would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, then connect to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make a right turn and a left turn at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the connection to US 1. Alternative 1C would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Village Green Drive. Alternative 1F would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curve northeast to connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6B is similar to Alternative 1F, and would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive, but would then curve northeast and cross the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It would connect with US 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard. Alternative 6A would extend Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive and curve north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of US 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard. Total costs of constructing the build alternatives are estimated in 2009 dollars at $118.9 to $167.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would address severe traffic congestion within the City of Port St. Lucie, particularly at the two existing bridges over the NFSLR which already exceed their capacity and operate below acceptable levels at critical times of the day. The project would also benefit public safety by providing an additional evacuation route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project area is within the boundaries of the NFSLR Aquatic Preserve and the Savannas Preserve State Park. Construction would impact eight to 10.9 acres of wetlands, 140 to 231 residences, and zero to 14 commercial properties. Six listed species (mangrove rivulus, smalltooth sawfish, opossum pipefish, eastern indigo snake, wood stork, and the West Indian manatee) may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. All build alternatives could affect wildlife passage and would introduce light trespass, noise, and colonization by invasive species. 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: 110259, Draft EIS--557 pages and maps, Appendices--724 pages, Technical Support Documents--on DVD, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - North Fork St. Lucie River 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/16385384?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CROSSTOWN+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%2C+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+NORTH+FORK+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SALTON SEA SPECIES CONSERVATION HABITAT PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16381333; 15022 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project (SCH Project) to develop a range of aquatic habitats that will support fish and wildlife species in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Salton Sea is Californias largest lake and was formed when Colorado River floodwater breached an irrigation canal being constructed in the Imperial Valley in 1905 and flowed into the Salton Sink. The Sea has since been maintained by irrigation runoff in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and local rivers. Although it has only existed for about 100 years, the Salton Sea has become an extremely critical resource for many species of resident and migratory birds, including several species of special concern. Because the Sea is a terminal lake, increasingly concentrated salts have resulted in a hypersaline ecosystem. Without restoration, the fishery and many of the waterfowl species dependent upon the Sea will likely become locally extinct or be eliminated from the Sea within the next five to 10 years. Alternatives considered for the project would restore shallow water habitat by diverting and conveying water to one or more large ponded units that each contains three to five smaller ponds. The newly created habitat would be contained within low berms and the water supply would be a combination of brackish river water and saline water from the Sea, blended to maintain an appropriate salinity range. Alternative sites for implementing the SCH Project are located near the mouths of the New and Alamo rivers. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve construction of 3,130 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, upstream gravity diversion of river water, and independent and cascading pond units. Under Alternative 2, a pumped river diversion would feed 2,670 acres of independent ponds on either side of the New River. Alternative 3 would involve construction of 3,770 acres of ponds on either side of the New River, pumped diversion of river water, and independent ponds extended to include Far West New and cascading pond units. Alternative 4 would employ gravity river diversion to feed 2,290 acres of independent ponds and a cascading pond unit on the north side of the Alamo River. Alternative 5 would involve construction of 2,080 acres of ponds constructed on the north side of the Alamo River, pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds, and independent pond units. Finally, Alternative 6 would involve construction of 2,940 acres of ponds on the north side of the Alamo River, and pumped river diversion at the SCH ponds with independent and cascading pond units. Alternative 3 is the California Natural Resources Agencys preferred alternative. The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet identified a preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The features, characteristics, and operations of the SCH Project could be tested under an adaptive management framework and would serve as a proof of concept. In addition to supporting piscivorous pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and black skimmers, the SCH ponds would also benefit other bird species, such as the eared grebe, western snowy plover, ruddy duck, black tern, and California brown pelican. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction would contribute incrementally to violations of air quality standards for ozone and particulates and would have a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Construction and operation would cause a temporary disturbance or loss of riparian areas and affect habitat and individuals of desert pupfish and several special-status bird species. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, construction of the sedimentation basin would result in the permanent loss of important farmland. Ground-disturbing activities could expose and damage undiscovered prehistoric and historic resources and result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110263, Draft EIS--590 pages, Appendices--442 pages, August 19, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Diversion Structures KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Lakes KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Salton Sea KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16381333?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 38 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894160068; 15016-7_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894160068?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 37 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894160062; 15016-7_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894160062?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 36 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894160049; 15016-7_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894160049?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 35 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894160031; 15016-7_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894160031?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 34 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894160024; 15016-7_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894160024?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 33 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894160016; 15016-7_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894160016?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 32 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894160005; 15016-7_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894160005?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 31 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894160000; 15016-7_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894160000?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 30 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159995; 15016-7_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159995?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 29 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159989; 15016-7_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159989?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 28 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159979; 15016-7_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159979?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 27 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159972; 15016-7_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159972?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 26 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159961; 15016-7_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159961?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 25 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159957; 15016-7_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159957?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 24 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159948; 15016-7_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159948?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 23 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159926; 15016-7_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159926?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 22 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159921; 15016-7_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159921?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 21 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159913; 15016-7_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159913?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 20 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159905; 15016-7_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159905?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159888; 15016-7_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159888?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159880; 15016-7_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159880?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159858; 15016-7_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159858?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159812; 15016-7_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159812?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159796; 15016-7_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159796?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159773; 15016-7_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159773?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159759; 15016-7_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159759?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159755; 15016-7_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159755?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159739; 15016-7_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159739?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159727; 15016-7_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159727?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159711; 15016-7_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159711?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159699; 15016-7_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159699?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159694; 15016-7_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159694?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159677; 15016-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159677?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159670; 15016-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159670?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TOPAZ SOLAR FARM PROJECT, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - TOPAZ SOLAR FARM PROJECT, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159645; 15017-8_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of a federal loan guarantee to Royal Bank of Scotland to provide funding for Topaz Solar Farms, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Solar, Inc., to construct and start up a solar farm in unincorporated eastern San Luis Obispo County, California is proposed. The nominal 550-megawatt (MW) photovoltaic (PV) solar energy generating facility would be located one mile north of the community of California Valley and six miles northwest of the Carrizo Plain National Monument. The proposed facility would consist of a solar field of ground-mounted PV modules, an electrical collection system, and the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) switching station that interconnects the project to PG&E's existing Morro Bay to Midway 230-kilovolt transmission line which runs through the project site. Generated electricity would be sold to PG&E under a long-term power purchase agreement. PG&E upgrades to the Morro Bay to Midway transmission line would be necessary to accommodate several projects in the region, including the final 150 MW of generated power by the proposed project. The PG&E upgrades would include: reconductoring 35 miles of transmission line; extending the height of every other tower by 20 feet; potentially replacing up to 10 percent of the towers to handle the additional weight; installing an optical ground wire along the length of the line for static and fiber optic communications; and installing a microwave tower and reflector. Additional components of the proposed project would include: a monitoring and maintenance facility; a Solar Energy Learning Center; up to 22 miles of on-site access roads; leach field and septic systems adjacent to the monitoring and maintenance facility and Solar Energy Learning Center; and perimeter fencing around the PV arrays. Two alternatives for development of the proposed project and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Each action alternative would contain virtually identical project features configured in different areas of the overall project site. Under Alternative A, the proposed project would be developed on 3,500 acres of a larger 7,800-acre study area (Study Area A) which encompasses the southern portion of the 10,000 acres that have been secured by the project proponent. Under Alternative B, the proposed project would be developed on up to 4,000 acres of a larger 6,300-acre study area (Study Area B) located two miles north of the community of California Valley and seven miles northwest of the Carrizo Plain National Monument. The preferred alternative is to issue a loan guarantee for Alternative A with the county-approved project layout. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would increase the availability of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and provide over one million megawatt-hours of electricity per year, enough to power 160,000 California homes annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would result in land disturbance, visual impacts, generation of fugitive dust and noise, soil erosion potential, consumption of utilities and natural resources, and increased vehicle traffic. Construction in Study Area A could also periodically disturb visitors to the Carrizo Plains National Monument. The presence of the solar facility would convert 3,500 acres of land from agriculture to a non-agricultural use and would alter the rural and agricultural character of the immediate project area. Lighting and noise from operation could affect wildlife behavior. Project features could also displace populations and affect the movement of wildlife through the area, particularly mammals such as tule elk, pronghorn antelope, and kit fox. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110258, Volume I--540 pages, Volume II: Appendices--1,222 pages, Volume III: Response to Comments--411 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0458 KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Land Use KW - Monuments KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894159645?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TOPAZ+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TOPAZ+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Loan Programs Office, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TOPAZ SOLAR FARM PROJECT, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - TOPAZ SOLAR FARM PROJECT, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159637; 15017-8_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of a federal loan guarantee to Royal Bank of Scotland to provide funding for Topaz Solar Farms, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Solar, Inc., to construct and start up a solar farm in unincorporated eastern San Luis Obispo County, California is proposed. The nominal 550-megawatt (MW) photovoltaic (PV) solar energy generating facility would be located one mile north of the community of California Valley and six miles northwest of the Carrizo Plain National Monument. The proposed facility would consist of a solar field of ground-mounted PV modules, an electrical collection system, and the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) switching station that interconnects the project to PG&E's existing Morro Bay to Midway 230-kilovolt transmission line which runs through the project site. Generated electricity would be sold to PG&E under a long-term power purchase agreement. PG&E upgrades to the Morro Bay to Midway transmission line would be necessary to accommodate several projects in the region, including the final 150 MW of generated power by the proposed project. The PG&E upgrades would include: reconductoring 35 miles of transmission line; extending the height of every other tower by 20 feet; potentially replacing up to 10 percent of the towers to handle the additional weight; installing an optical ground wire along the length of the line for static and fiber optic communications; and installing a microwave tower and reflector. Additional components of the proposed project would include: a monitoring and maintenance facility; a Solar Energy Learning Center; up to 22 miles of on-site access roads; leach field and septic systems adjacent to the monitoring and maintenance facility and Solar Energy Learning Center; and perimeter fencing around the PV arrays. Two alternatives for development of the proposed project and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Each action alternative would contain virtually identical project features configured in different areas of the overall project site. Under Alternative A, the proposed project would be developed on 3,500 acres of a larger 7,800-acre study area (Study Area A) which encompasses the southern portion of the 10,000 acres that have been secured by the project proponent. Under Alternative B, the proposed project would be developed on up to 4,000 acres of a larger 6,300-acre study area (Study Area B) located two miles north of the community of California Valley and seven miles northwest of the Carrizo Plain National Monument. The preferred alternative is to issue a loan guarantee for Alternative A with the county-approved project layout. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would increase the availability of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and provide over one million megawatt-hours of electricity per year, enough to power 160,000 California homes annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would result in land disturbance, visual impacts, generation of fugitive dust and noise, soil erosion potential, consumption of utilities and natural resources, and increased vehicle traffic. Construction in Study Area A could also periodically disturb visitors to the Carrizo Plains National Monument. The presence of the solar facility would convert 3,500 acres of land from agriculture to a non-agricultural use and would alter the rural and agricultural character of the immediate project area. Lighting and noise from operation could affect wildlife behavior. Project features could also displace populations and affect the movement of wildlife through the area, particularly mammals such as tule elk, pronghorn antelope, and kit fox. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110258, Volume I--540 pages, Volume II: Appendices--1,222 pages, Volume III: Response to Comments--411 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0458 KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Land Use KW - Monuments KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894159637?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TOPAZ+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TOPAZ+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Loan Programs Office, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TOPAZ SOLAR FARM PROJECT, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - TOPAZ SOLAR FARM PROJECT, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159615; 15017-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of a federal loan guarantee to Royal Bank of Scotland to provide funding for Topaz Solar Farms, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Solar, Inc., to construct and start up a solar farm in unincorporated eastern San Luis Obispo County, California is proposed. The nominal 550-megawatt (MW) photovoltaic (PV) solar energy generating facility would be located one mile north of the community of California Valley and six miles northwest of the Carrizo Plain National Monument. The proposed facility would consist of a solar field of ground-mounted PV modules, an electrical collection system, and the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) switching station that interconnects the project to PG&E's existing Morro Bay to Midway 230-kilovolt transmission line which runs through the project site. Generated electricity would be sold to PG&E under a long-term power purchase agreement. PG&E upgrades to the Morro Bay to Midway transmission line would be necessary to accommodate several projects in the region, including the final 150 MW of generated power by the proposed project. The PG&E upgrades would include: reconductoring 35 miles of transmission line; extending the height of every other tower by 20 feet; potentially replacing up to 10 percent of the towers to handle the additional weight; installing an optical ground wire along the length of the line for static and fiber optic communications; and installing a microwave tower and reflector. Additional components of the proposed project would include: a monitoring and maintenance facility; a Solar Energy Learning Center; up to 22 miles of on-site access roads; leach field and septic systems adjacent to the monitoring and maintenance facility and Solar Energy Learning Center; and perimeter fencing around the PV arrays. Two alternatives for development of the proposed project and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Each action alternative would contain virtually identical project features configured in different areas of the overall project site. Under Alternative A, the proposed project would be developed on 3,500 acres of a larger 7,800-acre study area (Study Area A) which encompasses the southern portion of the 10,000 acres that have been secured by the project proponent. Under Alternative B, the proposed project would be developed on up to 4,000 acres of a larger 6,300-acre study area (Study Area B) located two miles north of the community of California Valley and seven miles northwest of the Carrizo Plain National Monument. The preferred alternative is to issue a loan guarantee for Alternative A with the county-approved project layout. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would increase the availability of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and provide over one million megawatt-hours of electricity per year, enough to power 160,000 California homes annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would result in land disturbance, visual impacts, generation of fugitive dust and noise, soil erosion potential, consumption of utilities and natural resources, and increased vehicle traffic. Construction in Study Area A could also periodically disturb visitors to the Carrizo Plains National Monument. The presence of the solar facility would convert 3,500 acres of land from agriculture to a non-agricultural use and would alter the rural and agricultural character of the immediate project area. Lighting and noise from operation could affect wildlife behavior. Project features could also displace populations and affect the movement of wildlife through the area, particularly mammals such as tule elk, pronghorn antelope, and kit fox. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110258, Volume I--540 pages, Volume II: Appendices--1,222 pages, Volume III: Response to Comments--411 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0458 KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Land Use KW - Monuments KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/894159615?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TOPAZ+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TOPAZ+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Loan Programs Office, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 61 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159594; 15016-7_0061 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 61 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159594?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 55 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159580; 15016-7_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 55 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159580?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 54 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159573; 15016-7_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 54 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159573?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 58 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159543; 15015-6_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 58 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159543?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 52 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159534; 15015-6_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 52 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159534?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 57 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159533; 15015-6_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 57 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159533?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 51 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159510; 15015-6_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 51 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159510?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 56 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159507; 15015-6_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 56 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159507?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 50 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159500; 15015-6_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 50 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159500?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 49 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159485; 15015-6_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159485?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 55 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159476; 15015-6_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 55 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159476?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 46 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159430; 15015-6_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 46 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159430?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 45 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159414; 15015-6_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 45 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159414?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 44 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159391; 15015-6_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 44 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159391?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 43 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159375; 15015-6_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159375?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 42 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159342; 15015-6_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159342?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 41 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159323; 15015-6_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159323?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 40 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159302; 15015-6_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159302?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159285; 15015-6_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159285?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 39 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159284; 15015-6_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159284?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 38 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159274; 15015-6_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159274?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159267; 15015-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159267?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 37 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159257; 15015-6_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159257?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 36 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159243; 15015-6_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159243?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 35 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159205; 15015-6_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159205?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159195; 15015-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159195?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 34 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159166; 15015-6_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159166?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 33 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159156; 15015-6_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159156?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 32 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159134; 15015-6_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159134?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 31 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159099; 15015-6_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159099?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 29 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159068; 15015-6_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159068?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 28 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159066; 15015-6_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159066?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 27 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159045; 15015-6_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159045?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 62 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159038; 15016-7_0062 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 62 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159038?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 26 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159020; 15015-6_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159020?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 50 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894159015; 15016-7_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 50 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894159015?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 25 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158991; 15015-6_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158991?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 49 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158987; 15016-7_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158987?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 24 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158983; 15015-6_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158983?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 48 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158978; 15016-7_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 48 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158978?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 23 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158969; 15015-6_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158969?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 65 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158964; 15016-7_0065 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 65 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158964?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 47 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158963; 15016-7_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 47 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158963?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 22 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158951; 15015-6_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158951?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 46 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158950; 15016-7_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 46 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158950?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158945; 15015-6_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158945?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 45 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158942; 15016-7_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 45 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158942?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158938; 15015-6_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158938?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 44 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158930; 15016-7_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 44 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158930?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158929; 15015-6_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158929?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 43 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158928; 15016-7_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158928?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158912; 15015-6_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158912?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 42 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158911; 15016-7_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158911?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 41 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158903; 15016-7_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158903?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158899; 15015-6_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158899?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 40 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158889; 15016-7_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158889?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158881; 15015-6_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158881?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 39 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158876; 15016-7_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158876?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158869; 15015-6_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158869?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158853; 15015-6_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158853?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158840; 15016-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158840?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158828; 15015-6_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158828?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158824; 15016-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158824?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 53 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158823; 15016-7_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 53 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158823?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 64 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158813; 15016-7_0064 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 64 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158813?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 54 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158807; 15015-6_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 54 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158807?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158805; 15016-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158805?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 52 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158804; 15016-7_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 52 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158804?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158797; 15015-6_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158797?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 63 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158790; 15016-7_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 63 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158790?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 51 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158783; 15016-7_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 51 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158783?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 53 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158757; 15015-6_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 53 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158757?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158755; 15016-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158755?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 56 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158746; 15016-7_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 56 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158746?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 60 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158735; 15016-7_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 60 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158735?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 59 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158717; 15016-7_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 59 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158717?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 58 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158699; 15016-7_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 58 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158699?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 20 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158695; 15015-6_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158695?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 57 of 65] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158678; 15016-7_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 57 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158678?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158673; 15015-6_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158673?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158646; 15015-6_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158646?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158605; 15015-6_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158605?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 59] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION, FRESNO, KINGS, TULARE AND KERN COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 894158556; 15015-6_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 114-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Fresno to Bakersfield is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Fresno to Bakersfield section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HST sections to the north and the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections to the south. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include impacts on special-status plants and wildlife, corridor communities, and farmlands. Seven alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the six HST alternatives would include one station in Fresno, one station in Bakersfield, and a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station east of Hanford. The estimated trip time between the Fresno and Bakersfield stations would be approximately 40 minutes. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at each of the three stations in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. The BNSF Alternative alignment begins in downtown Fresno on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, proceeds south adjacent to the UPRR tracks, crossing under East Jensen Avenue and then over Golden State Boulevard and State Route 99 as it curves south to join the BNSF Railway. The alignment diverges from the BNSF Railway north of the Kings River and travels east of the city of Hanford before rejoining the BNSF Railway on its western side, north of the city of Corcoran. From there, the BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF Railway south through Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter into Bakersfield where it generally follows the BNSF Railway corridor to the Bakersfield Station. The additional five alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various locations. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on an elevated structure. The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at approximately Nevada Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 136 south of Corcoran. The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and swing west of Allensworth State Historic Park, rejoining the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern County. The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative between Sherwood Avenue and Fresno Avenue, bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east, and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at 7th Standard Road. The Bakersfield South Alternative parallels the BNSF Alternative from Rosedale Highway to Chester Avenue at varying distances to the north. The alternative then curves south, and parallels California Avenue to its terminus at the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The project may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) centrally located on the main north-south line of the HST system to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $6.2 to $7.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF at either the Fresno or Wasco sites could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert 2,192 to 2,397 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties including 104 to 192 housing units in environmental justice areas. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical habitat of vernal pool fairy shrimp, recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, wildlife movement corridors, and the Allensworth Ecological Reserve. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110256, Volume I--1,532 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--800 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--940 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/894158556?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+FRESNO+TO+BAKERSFIELD+SECTION%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE+AND+KERN+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 889170138; 15016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 80-mile portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The HST system would provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. Key issues include potential impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and corridor communities. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The three HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035 for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. The main difference between the initial UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives is that the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative generally follows the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The BNSF Alternative follows the BNSF corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veers back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative again before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative follows the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. Five alternative sites on the main north-south line of the HST system are considered for a potential heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. The HMF concept plan indicates that the site should encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. Project costs for the Merced to Fresno HST system segment are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $6.7 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and connect the Northern and Southern portions of the California HST system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Right-of-way requirements would convert up to 1,481 acres of farmland and displace commercial, residential, and agricultural properties. Project operation would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. All HST alternatives have the potential to cause impacts on historic properties and would result in increased traffic congestion, displacement impacts of community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration impacts, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110257, Volume I--1,440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--652 pages, Volume III (Alignment Plans)--4,130 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 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/889170138?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TOPAZ SOLAR FARM PROJECT, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16381271; 15017 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of a federal loan guarantee to Royal Bank of Scotland to provide funding for Topaz Solar Farms, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Solar, Inc., to construct and start up a solar farm in unincorporated eastern San Luis Obispo County, California is proposed. The nominal 550-megawatt (MW) photovoltaic (PV) solar energy generating facility would be located one mile north of the community of California Valley and six miles northwest of the Carrizo Plain National Monument. The proposed facility would consist of a solar field of ground-mounted PV modules, an electrical collection system, and the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) switching station that interconnects the project to PG&E's existing Morro Bay to Midway 230-kilovolt transmission line which runs through the project site. Generated electricity would be sold to PG&E under a long-term power purchase agreement. PG&E upgrades to the Morro Bay to Midway transmission line would be necessary to accommodate several projects in the region, including the final 150 MW of generated power by the proposed project. The PG&E upgrades would include: reconductoring 35 miles of transmission line; extending the height of every other tower by 20 feet; potentially replacing up to 10 percent of the towers to handle the additional weight; installing an optical ground wire along the length of the line for static and fiber optic communications; and installing a microwave tower and reflector. Additional components of the proposed project would include: a monitoring and maintenance facility; a Solar Energy Learning Center; up to 22 miles of on-site access roads; leach field and septic systems adjacent to the monitoring and maintenance facility and Solar Energy Learning Center; and perimeter fencing around the PV arrays. Two alternatives for development of the proposed project and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Each action alternative would contain virtually identical project features configured in different areas of the overall project site. Under Alternative A, the proposed project would be developed on 3,500 acres of a larger 7,800-acre study area (Study Area A) which encompasses the southern portion of the 10,000 acres that have been secured by the project proponent. Under Alternative B, the proposed project would be developed on up to 4,000 acres of a larger 6,300-acre study area (Study Area B) located two miles north of the community of California Valley and seven miles northwest of the Carrizo Plain National Monument. The preferred alternative is to issue a loan guarantee for Alternative A with the county-approved project layout. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would increase the availability of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and provide over one million megawatt-hours of electricity per year, enough to power 160,000 California homes annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would result in land disturbance, visual impacts, generation of fugitive dust and noise, soil erosion potential, consumption of utilities and natural resources, and increased vehicle traffic. Construction in Study Area A could also periodically disturb visitors to the Carrizo Plains National Monument. The presence of the solar facility would convert 3,500 acres of land from agriculture to a non-agricultural use and would alter the rural and agricultural character of the immediate project area. Lighting and noise from operation could affect wildlife behavior. Project features could also displace populations and affect the movement of wildlife through the area, particularly mammals such as tule elk, pronghorn antelope, and kit fox. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110258, Volume I--540 pages, Volume II: Appendices--1,222 pages, Volume III: Response to Comments--411 pages, August 12, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0458 KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Land Use KW - Monuments KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16381271?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TOPAZ+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TOPAZ+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Loan Programs Office, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 12, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Nitrogen exploitation and its role in the explosive growth of the weedy invasive species, Hydrilla verticillata T2 - 96th Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America (ESA 2011) AN - 1313066277; 6097656 JF - 96th Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America (ESA 2011) AU - Smart, R AU - Smith, D Y1 - 2011/08/07/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Aug 07 KW - Invasive species KW - Nitrogen KW - Introduced species KW - Invasive Species KW - Growth KW - Hydrilla verticillata UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1313066277?accountid=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=96th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Ecological+Society+of+America+%28ESA+2011%29&rft.atitle=Nitrogen+exploitation+and+its+role+in+the+explosive+growth+of+the+weedy+invasive+species%2C+Hydrilla+verticillata&rft.au=Smart%2C+R%3BSmith%2C+D&rft.aulast=Smart&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2011-08-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=96th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Ecological+Society+of+America+%28ESA+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.esa.org/austin/info/2011_ESA_Annual_Meeting_%28Austin%29_program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Why plants are the bomb: Discriminating explosives from natural environmental stresses T2 - 96th Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America (ESA 2011) AN - 1313044453; 6099865 JF - 96th Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America (ESA 2011) AU - Zinnert, J AU - Nelson, J AU - Anderson, J AU - Young, D Y1 - 2011/08/07/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Aug 07 KW - Explosives KW - Environmental stress UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1313044453?accountid=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=96th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Ecological+Society+of+America+%28ESA+2011%29&rft.atitle=Why+plants+are+the+bomb%3A+Discriminating+explosives+from+natural+environmental+stresses&rft.au=Zinnert%2C+J%3BNelson%2C+J%3BAnderson%2C+J%3BYoung%2C+D&rft.aulast=Zinnert&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2011-08-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=96th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Ecological+Society+of+America+%28ESA+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.esa.org/austin/info/2011_ESA_Annual_Meeting_%28Austin%29_program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Cheatgrass and AMF: Understanding interactions for improved restoration of invaded lands T2 - 96th Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America (ESA 2011) AN - 1313030148; 6100509 JF - 96th Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America (ESA 2011) AU - Busby, R AU - Paschke, M AU - Stromberger, M AU - Gebhart, D AU - Meiman, P Y1 - 2011/08/07/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Aug 07 KW - Restoration UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1313030148?accountid=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=96th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Ecological+Society+of+America+%28ESA+2011%29&rft.atitle=Cheatgrass+and+AMF%3A+Understanding+interactions+for+improved+restoration+of+invaded+lands&rft.au=Busby%2C+R%3BPaschke%2C+M%3BStromberger%2C+M%3BGebhart%2C+D%3BMeiman%2C+P&rft.aulast=Busby&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2011-08-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=96th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Ecological+Society+of+America+%28ESA+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.esa.org/austin/info/2011_ESA_Annual_Meeting_%28Austin%29_program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Physics to planning: Numerical modeling in support of ecosystem restoration in estuaries T2 - 96th Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America (ESA 2011) AN - 1313004678; 6100555 JF - 96th Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America (ESA 2011) AU - Childs, E AU - Savant, G AU - McAdory, R Y1 - 2011/08/07/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Aug 07 KW - Mathematical models KW - Estuaries KW - Restoration UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1313004678?accountid=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=96th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Ecological+Society+of+America+%28ESA+2011%29&rft.atitle=Physics+to+planning%3A+Numerical+modeling+in+support+of+ecosystem+restoration+in+estuaries&rft.au=Childs%2C+E%3BSavant%2C+G%3BMcAdory%2C+R&rft.aulast=Childs&rft.aufirst=E&rft.date=2011-08-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=96th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Ecological+Society+of+America+%28ESA+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.esa.org/austin/info/2011_ESA_Annual_Meeting_%28Austin%29_program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - NEWS T1 - New Mexico fishing report, Aug. 5, 2011 AN - 881290518 AB - Extreme fire danger has prompted agencies to impose fire restrictions and closures on public and private lands across New Mexico. Both species are being caught on soft plastics, jerk baits or crank baits Salmon are starting to bite Rapalas or Kokanee Killers in 40 feet of water. White bass are reported as very good early in the mornings and evenings with sassy shad lures. JF - McClatchy - Tribune Business News AU - Kristin Skopeck with Army Corps of Engineers Y1 - 2011/08/05/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Aug 05 CY - Washington KW - Business And Economics KW - Bass KW - Sport fishing KW - Trout KW - Parks & recreation areas UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/881290518?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabidateline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=McClatchy+-+Tribune+Business+News&rft.atitle=New+Mexico+fishing+report%2C+Aug.+5%2C+2011&rft.au=Kristin+Skopeck+with+Army+Corps+of+Engineers&rft.aulast=Kristin+Skopeck+with+Army+Corps+of+Engineers&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=McClatchy+-+Tribune+Business+News&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Central N1 - Copyright - To see more of The Santa Fe New Mexican, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.santafenewmexican.com/. Copyright (c) 2011, The Santa Fe New Mexican Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. For more information about the content services offered by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services (MCT), visit www.mctinfoservices.com. N1 - Last updated - 2011-08-06 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Solid-state NMR analysis of soil organic matter fractions from integrated physical-chemical extraction AN - 916839263; 2012-013895 AB - Fractions of soil organic matter (SOM) were extracted by an integrated physical-chemical procedure and their chemical natures were characterized through (super 13) C nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. For the 0- to 5-cm depth of a corn (Zea mays L.)-soybean [Glycine max. (L.) Merr.] soil in Iowa, we extracted in sequence the light fraction, two size fractions of particulate organic matter (POM), and two NaOH-extractable humic acid fractions based on their binding to soil Ca (super 2+) : the unbound mobile humic acid fraction and the calcium humate fraction. Whole SOM was obtained by dissolving the soil mineral component through HF washes. All samples were analyzed by advanced (super 13) C NMR techniques, including quantitative direct polarization/magic angle spinning, spectral-editing techniques, and two-dimensional (super 1) H- (super 13) C heteronuclear correlation NMR. The NMR spectra were comparable for the light fraction and two POM fractions and were dominated by carbohydrates and to a lesser extent lignins or their residues, with appreciable proteins or peptides. By contrast, spectra of the two humic fractions were dominated by aromatic C and COO/N-C=O groups, with smaller proportions of carbohydrates and NCH/OCH (sub 3) groups, indicative of more humified material. This trend was yet more pronounced in the calcium humate fraction. The spectrum for whole SOM had signals intermediate between these two groups of SOM fractions, suggesting contributions from both groups. Our results for this soil suggest that either chemical or physical fractions alone will partially represent whole SOM, and their integrated use is likely to provide greater insight into SOM structure and possibly function, depending on the research issue. JF - Soil Science Society of America Journal AU - Cao, Xiaoyan AU - Olk, Daniel C AU - Chappell, Mark AU - Cambardella, Cynthia A AU - Miller, Lesley F AU - Mao, Jingdong Y1 - 2011/08// PY - 2011 DA - August 2011 SP - 1374 EP - 1384 PB - Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI VL - 75 IS - 4 SN - 0361-5995, 0361-5995 KW - United States KW - soils KW - chemical analysis KW - Story County Iowa KW - physicochemical properties KW - grain size KW - agriculture KW - humic acids KW - Iowa KW - NMR spectra KW - size distribution KW - sample preparation KW - organic compounds KW - organic acids KW - humic substances KW - carbon KW - central Iowa KW - spectra KW - organic carbon KW - nuclear magnetic resonance KW - spectroscopy KW - Ames Iowa KW - Mollisols KW - 25:Soils KW - 02A:General geochemistry UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916839263?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Soil+Science+Society+of+America+Journal&rft.atitle=Solid-state+NMR+analysis+of+soil+organic+matter+fractions+from+integrated+physical-chemical+extraction&rft.au=Cao%2C+Xiaoyan%3BOlk%2C+Daniel+C%3BChappell%2C+Mark%3BCambardella%2C+Cynthia+A%3BMiller%2C+Lesley+F%3BMao%2C+Jingdong&rft.aulast=Cao&rft.aufirst=Xiaoyan&rft.date=2011-08-01&rft.volume=75&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1374&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Soil+Science+Society+of+America+Journal&rft.issn=03615995&rft_id=info:doi/10.2136%2Fsssaj2010.0382 L2 - http://soil.scijournals.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 41 N1 - PubXState - WI N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - SSSJD4 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - agriculture; Ames Iowa; carbon; central Iowa; chemical analysis; grain size; humic acids; humic substances; Iowa; Mollisols; NMR spectra; nuclear magnetic resonance; organic acids; organic carbon; organic compounds; physicochemical properties; sample preparation; size distribution; soils; spectra; spectroscopy; Story County Iowa; United States DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2010.0382 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Dissolution and sorption of hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) and 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) residues from detonated mineral surfaces AN - 907958677; 15380753 AB - Composition B (Comp B) is a commonly used military formulation composed of the toxic explosive compounds 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT), and hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX). Numerous studies of the temporal fate of explosive compounds in soils, surface water and laboratory batch reactors have been conducted. However, most of these investigations relied on the application of explosive compounds to the media via aqueous addition and thus these studies do not provide information on the real world loading of explosive residues during detonation events. To address this we investigated the dissolution and sorption of TNT and RDX from Comp B residues loaded to pure mineral phases through controlled detonation. Mineral phases included nontronite, vermiculite, biotite and Ottawa sand (quartz with minor calcite). High Performance Liquid Chromatography and Attenuated Total Reflectance Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscopy were used to investigate the dissolution and sorption of TNT and RDX residues loaded onto the mineral surfaces. Detonation resulted in heterogeneous loading of TNT and RDX onto the mineral surfaces. Explosive compound residues dissolved rapidly (within 9h) in all samples but maximum concentrations for TNT and RDX were not consistent over time due to precipitation from solution, sorption onto mineral surfaces, and/or chemical reactions between explosive compounds and mineral surfaces. We provide a conceptual model of the physical and chemical processes governing the fate of explosive compound residues in soil minerals controlled by sorption-desorption processes. JF - Chemosphere AU - Jaramillo, Ashley M AU - Douglas, Thomas A AU - Walsh, Marianne E AU - Trainor, Thomas P Y1 - 2011/08// PY - 2011 DA - Aug 2011 SP - 1058 EP - 1065 PB - Elsevier B.V., P.O. Box 800 Kidlington Oxford OX5 1DX United Kingdom VL - 84 IS - 8 SN - 0045-6535, 0045-6535 KW - Environment Abstracts KW - Dissolution KW - Sorption KW - Explosive residue KW - TNT KW - RDX KW - Soil KW - Fourier transforms KW - Residues KW - Chemical reactions KW - Canada, Ontario, Ottawa KW - Explosives KW - 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene KW - Military KW - Minerals KW - ENA 11:Non-Renewable Resources UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/907958677?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Chemosphere&rft.atitle=Dissolution+and+sorption+of+hexahydro-1%2C3%2C5-trinitro-1%2C3%2C5-triazine+%28RDX%29+and+2%2C4%2C6-trinitrotoluene+%28TNT%29+residues+from+detonated+mineral+surfaces&rft.au=Jaramillo%2C+Ashley+M%3BDouglas%2C+Thomas+A%3BWalsh%2C+Marianne+E%3BTrainor%2C+Thomas+P&rft.aulast=Jaramillo&rft.aufirst=Ashley&rft.date=2011-08-01&rft.volume=84&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1058&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Chemosphere&rft.issn=00456535&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.chemosphere.2011.04.066 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-19 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Soil; Sorption; Fourier transforms; Residues; Chemical reactions; Explosives; Military; 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene; Minerals; Canada, Ontario, Ottawa DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.04.066 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A heuristic examination of cohesive sediment bed exchange in turbulent flows AN - 898160749; 2011-087540 AB - Prediction of the concentration of suspended cohesive sediment in the marine environment is constrained by difficulties in interpreting experimental evidence on bed exchange, i.e. erosion and deposition of particles, which remains sparse in mechanistic details. In this paper, conditions under which bed exchange in turbulent flows collectively determines the concentration of suspended matter have been examined in the heuristic sense based on selective experimental data. It is argued that interpretation of such data can be significantly facilitated when multi-class representation of particle size, collisional interaction between suspended particles and probabilistic representations of the bed shear stress along with variables describing particle behavior (critical shear stress for deposition, bed floc shear strength) are taken into account. Aggregation-floc growth and breakup kinetics-brings about shifts in the suspended particle size distribution; bed exchange is accordingly modulated and this in turn determines concentration dynamics. Probabilistic representation of the governing variables broadens the suspended sediment size spectrum by increasing the possibilities of inter-particle interactions relative to the mean-value representation. Simple models of bed exchange, which essentially rely on single-size assumption and mean-value representation of variables, overlook the mechanistic basis underpinning particle dynamics. JF - Coastal Engineering AU - Letter, J V AU - Mehta, A J Y1 - 2011/08// PY - 2011 DA - August 2011 SP - 779 EP - 789 PB - Elsevier, Amsterdam VL - 58 IS - 8 SN - 0378-3839, 0378-3839 KW - flocculation KW - bedload KW - concentration KW - experimental studies KW - hydraulics KW - erosion KW - shear stress KW - grain size KW - analog simulation KW - statistical analysis KW - sedimentation KW - prediction KW - suspended materials KW - mathematical models KW - turbulence KW - physical models KW - flume studies KW - cohesive materials KW - laboratory studies KW - size distribution KW - deposition KW - probability KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898160749?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Coastal+Engineering&rft.atitle=A+heuristic+examination+of+cohesive+sediment+bed+exchange+in+turbulent+flows&rft.au=Letter%2C+J+V%3BMehta%2C+A+J&rft.aulast=Letter&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2011-08-01&rft.volume=58&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=779&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Coastal+Engineering&rft.issn=03783839&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.coastaleng.2011.04.003 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03783839 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 33 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - analog simulation; bedload; cohesive materials; concentration; deposition; erosion; experimental studies; flocculation; flume studies; grain size; hydraulics; laboratory studies; mathematical models; physical models; prediction; probability; sedimentation; shear stress; size distribution; statistical analysis; suspended materials; turbulence DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2011.04.003 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Differential kinetics and temperature dependence of abiotic and biotic processes controlling the environmental fate of TNT in simulated marine systems AN - 883023768; 15380901 AB - This work seeks to understand how the balance of abiotic and biotic kinetic processes in sediments control the residual concentration of TNT in marine systems after release from ocean-dumped source. Kinetics of TNT disappearance were followed using marine sediments at different temperatures and under both biotic and presumably abiotic conditions (through sodium azide addition). Sediments exhibiting the highest rate of TNT disappearance under biotic conditions also exhibited the highest sorption affinity for TNT under abiotic conditions. Significant temperature dependence in the abiotic processes was observed in the diffusion coefficient of TNT and not sediment sorption affinity. At higher temperature, kinetics of biotic processes outpaced abiotic processes, but at low temperature, kinetics of abiotic processes were much more significant. We concluded that the differential influence of temperature on the kinetics of abiotic and biotic processes could provide distinguishing predictions for the potential residual concentration of TNT contamination in marine-sediment systems. JF - Marine Pollution Bulletin AU - Chappell, Mark A AU - Porter, Beth E AU - Price, Cynthia L AU - Pettway, Brad A AU - George, Robert D AD - US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, USA, mark.a.chappell@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2011/08// PY - 2011 DA - August 2011 SP - 1736 EP - 1743 PB - Elsevier B.V., P.O. Box 800 Kidlington Oxford OX5 1DX United Kingdom VL - 62 IS - 8 SN - 0025-326X, 0025-326X KW - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Environment Abstracts; Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Pollution Abstracts KW - Temperature effects KW - Marine KW - Sorption KW - Contamination KW - Temperature KW - Environmental impact KW - Sediments KW - Sodium KW - Low temperature KW - Marine pollution KW - Kinetics KW - low temperature KW - Diffusion KW - Diffusion coefficients KW - Q2 09264:Sediments and sedimentation KW - O 4080:Pollution - Control and Prevention KW - P 1000:MARINE POLLUTION KW - ENA 12:Oceans & Estuaries KW - Q5 08502:Methods and instruments UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/883023768?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aasfaaquaticpollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Marine+Pollution+Bulletin&rft.atitle=Differential+kinetics+and+temperature+dependence+of+abiotic+and+biotic+processes+controlling+the+environmental+fate+of+TNT+in+simulated+marine+systems&rft.au=Chappell%2C+Mark+A%3BPorter%2C+Beth+E%3BPrice%2C+Cynthia+L%3BPettway%2C+Brad+A%3BGeorge%2C+Robert+D&rft.aulast=Chappell&rft.aufirst=Mark&rft.date=2011-08-01&rft.volume=62&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1736&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Marine+Pollution+Bulletin&rft.issn=0025326X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.marpolbul.2011.05.026 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - Number of references - 1 N1 - Last updated - 2016-03-17 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Temperature effects; Sorption; Low temperature; Marine pollution; Contamination; Diffusion coefficients; Sodium; Kinetics; Environmental impact; low temperature; Temperature; Diffusion; Sediments; Marine DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.026 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Genomic investigation of year-long and multigenerational exposures of fathead minnow to the munitions compound RDX. AN - 875720145; 21538488 AB - We assessed the impacts of exposure to an environmentally representative concentration (0.83 mg/L) of the explosive cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine (RDX) on fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) in one-year and multigenerational bioassays. In the one-year bioassay, impacts were assessed by statistical comparisons of females from breeding groups reared in control or RDX-exposure conditions. The RDX had no significant effect on gonadosomatic index or condition factor assayed at 1 d and at one, three, six, nine, and 12 months. The liver-somatic index was significantly increased versus controls only at the 12-month timepoint. RDX had no significant effect on live-prey capture rates, egg production, or fertilization. RDX caused minimal differential-transcript expression with no consistent discernable effect on gene-functional categories for either brain or liver tissues in the one-year exposure. In the multigenerational assay, the effects of acute (96 h) exposure to RDX were compared in fish reared to the F(2) generation in either control or RDX-exposure conditions. Enrichment of gene functions including neuroexcitatory glutamate metabolism, sensory signaling, and neurological development were observed comparing control-reared and RDX-reared fish. Our results indicated that exposure to RDX at a concentration representing the highest levels observed in the environment (0.83 mg/L) had limited impacts on genomic, individual, and population-level endpoints in fathead minnows in a one-year exposure. However, multigenerational exposures altered transcript expression related to neural development and function. Environ. Copyright © 2011 SETAC. JF - Environmental toxicology and chemistry AU - Gust, Kurt A AU - Brasfield, Sandra M AU - Stanley, Jacob K AU - Wilbanks, Mitchell S AU - Chappell, Pornsawan AU - Perkins, Edward J AU - Lotufo, Guilherme R AU - Lance, Richard F AD - Environmental Laboratory, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA. kurt.a.gust@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2011/08// PY - 2011 DA - August 2011 SP - 1852 EP - 1864 VL - 30 IS - 8 KW - Explosive Agents KW - 0 KW - Fish Proteins KW - Triazines KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical KW - cyclonite KW - W91SSV5831 KW - Index Medicus KW - Gene Expression -- drug effects KW - Animals KW - Dose-Response Relationship, Drug KW - Brain -- drug effects KW - Environmental Exposure -- analysis KW - Genome -- drug effects KW - Biological Assay KW - Liver -- metabolism KW - Fish Proteins -- genetics KW - Brain -- metabolism KW - Fertilization KW - Liver -- drug effects KW - Fish Proteins -- metabolism KW - Male KW - Female KW - Cyprinidae -- metabolism KW - Triazines -- toxicity KW - Explosive Agents -- toxicity KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical -- toxicity KW - Triazines -- metabolism KW - Explosive Agents -- metabolism KW - Cyprinidae -- genetics KW - Cyprinidae -- growth & development KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical -- metabolism UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/875720145?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+toxicology+and+chemistry&rft.atitle=Genomic+investigation+of+year-long+and+multigenerational+exposures+of+fathead+minnow+to+the+munitions+compound+RDX.&rft.au=Gust%2C+Kurt+A%3BBrasfield%2C+Sandra+M%3BStanley%2C+Jacob+K%3BWilbanks%2C+Mitchell+S%3BChappell%2C+Pornsawan%3BPerkins%2C+Edward+J%3BLotufo%2C+Guilherme+R%3BLance%2C+Richard+F&rft.aulast=Gust&rft.aufirst=Kurt&rft.date=2011-08-01&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1852&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+toxicology+and+chemistry&rft.issn=1552-8618&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fetc.558 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2011-09-28 N1 - Date created - 2011-07-07 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.558 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Earth pressures in confined cohesionless backfill against tall rigid walls; a case history AN - 1316372865; 2013-024383 AB - Earth pressures exerted on tall, rigid retaining walls by confined backfill zones are not well understood. Many factors, such as the complex nature of the soil-structure interaction, soil arching within the backfill zone, vertical shear transfer (downdrag) on the back faces of walls, seasonal temperature effects, and variable methods of construction, affect the earth pressures. The new monolithic wall for the McAlpine Locks replacement project, constructed in Louisville, Kentucky, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, was instrumented to measure earth pressures and temperatures for 2 years, through continuing construction of monolith L-11. Earth pressures appeared to vary with changes in backfill temperature because gauges were not calibrated for thermal expansion-contraction of oil in the pressure chambers of the gauges. A temperature calibration and data filtering procedure was developed and verified through laboratory testing, as reported elsewhere. Adjusted pressure data are presented herein to illustrate the effects of compaction procedures and environmental factors. Earth pressure data reflect soil arching and vertical shear effects, roller-compacted concrete wall movement, and surcharging effects. Measured earth pressure values are compared to predictions based on classical theory and arching theory. JF - Canadian Geotechnical Journal = Revue Canadienne de Geotechnique AU - O'Neal, Troy S AU - Hagerty, D J Y1 - 2011/08// PY - 2011 DA - August 2011 SP - 1188 EP - 1197 PB - National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, ON VL - 48 IS - 8 SN - 0008-3674, 0008-3674 KW - United States KW - backfill KW - retaining walls KW - earth pressure KW - cohesionless materials KW - compactness KW - case studies KW - finite element analysis KW - walls KW - foundations KW - soil-structure interface KW - Kentucky KW - McAlpine Locks KW - Jefferson County Kentucky KW - Louisville Kentucky KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1316372865?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Canadian+Geotechnical+Journal+%3D+Revue+Canadienne+de+Geotechnique&rft.atitle=Earth+pressures+in+confined+cohesionless+backfill+against+tall+rigid+walls%3B+a+case+history&rft.au=O%27Neal%2C+Troy+S%3BHagerty%2C+D+J&rft.aulast=O%27Neal&rft.aufirst=Troy&rft.date=2011-08-01&rft.volume=48&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1188&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Canadian+Geotechnical+Journal+%3D+Revue+Canadienne+de+Geotechnique&rft.issn=00083674&rft_id=info:doi/10.1139%2Ft11-033 L2 - http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/rp-ps/journalDetail.jsp?jcode=cgj&lang=eng LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2013, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2013-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 14 N1 - PubXState - ON N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table N1 - Last updated - 2013-03-14 N1 - CODEN - CGJOAH N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - backfill; case studies; cohesionless materials; compactness; earth pressure; finite element analysis; foundations; Jefferson County Kentucky; Kentucky; Louisville Kentucky; McAlpine Locks; retaining walls; soil-structure interface; United States; walls DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/t11-033 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Two-Dimensional Numerical Model of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway near New Orleans AN - 1827900087; PQ0003648102 AB - Two-dimensional tidal flows within the Lake PontchartrainaLake Borgne area (Louisiana) are simulated to assess the effects of the surge protection structure on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) on navigation conditions. The region of interest is modeled with a shallow-water, depth-averaged, finite-element model. The water levels and discharge are analyzed at a location in the GIWW to ascertain model behavior. It is shown that the presence of the structure produces infrequent increases in velocities in the GIWW, which can be mitigated by a proposed structure near Lake Pontchartrain. JF - Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering AU - Martin, SKeith AU - Savant, Gaurav AU - McVan, Darla C AD - Research Physicist, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS., keith.martin@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2011/07/30/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Jul 30 SP - 236 EP - 245 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers, 345 E. 47th St. New York NY 10017-2398 United States VL - 138 IS - 3 SN - 0733-950X, 0733-950X KW - Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts KW - Case Studies KW - Case Study KW - Barriers KW - Shallow water KW - Louisiana KW - Lakes KW - Two-dimensional models KW - Waterways KW - Adaptive hydraulics KW - Sector gate KW - Lake Borgne surge barrier KW - Flow KW - ASW, USA, Louisiana KW - Offshore engineering KW - Gulfs KW - Water levels KW - Engineering KW - Tidal flow KW - Finite-element methods KW - Numerical models KW - Modelling KW - Marine KW - Mathematical models KW - Surges KW - River discharge KW - Velocity KW - Water Level KW - Navigation KW - USA, Louisiana, New Orleans KW - Tidal currents KW - ASW, USA, Louisiana, Pontchartrain L. KW - Oceans KW - Coastal oceanography KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - Q2 09322:Drilling and production rigs KW - SW 0810:General KW - M2 551.5:General (551.5) UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1827900087?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Waterway%2C+Port%2C+Coastal+and+Ocean+Engineering&rft.atitle=Two-Dimensional+Numerical+Model+of+the+Gulf+Intracoastal+Waterway+near+New+Orleans&rft.au=Martin%2C+SKeith%3BSavant%2C+Gaurav%3BMcVan%2C+Darla+C&rft.aulast=Martin&rft.aufirst=SKeith&rft.date=2011-07-30&rft.volume=138&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=236&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Waterway%2C+Port%2C+Coastal+and+Ocean+Engineering&rft.issn=0733950X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F%28ASCE%29WW.1943-5460.0000119 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2016-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Water levels; Offshore engineering; Mathematical models; Shallow water; Surges; River discharge; Tidal currents; Modelling; Finite-element methods; Tidal flow; Numerical models; Coastal oceanography; Flow; Engineering; Lakes; Oceans; Velocity; Water Level; Waterways; Navigation; Gulfs; ASW, USA, Louisiana; ASW, USA, Louisiana, Pontchartrain L.; USA, Louisiana, New Orleans; Marine DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WW.1943-5460.0000119 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 41 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888701294; 14999-9_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888701294?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 57 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888701278; 14999-9_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 57 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888701278?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 56 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888701275; 14999-9_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 56 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888701275?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 35 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888701059; 14999-9_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888701059?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 34 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888701055; 14999-9_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888701055?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 33 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888701051; 14999-9_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888701051?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 32 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888701046; 14999-9_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888701046?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 31 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888701043; 14999-9_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888701043?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 50 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888700989; 14999-9_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 50 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888700989?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 49 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888700987; 14999-9_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888700987?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 40 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888700982; 14999-9_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888700982?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 39 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888700979; 14999-9_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888700979?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 54 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888700106; 14999-9_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 54 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888700106?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 53 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888700091; 14999-9_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 53 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888700091?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 30 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698237; 14999-9_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698237?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 29 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698231; 14999-9_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698231?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 28 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698226; 14999-9_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698226?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 27 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698225; 14999-9_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698225?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 26 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698224; 14999-9_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698224?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 25 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698223; 14999-9_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698223?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 24 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698222; 14999-9_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698222?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 23 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698221; 14999-9_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698221?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 22 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698220; 14999-9_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698220?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 21 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698215; 14999-9_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698215?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 20 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698211; 14999-9_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698211?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 16 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698206; 14999-9_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698206?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 15 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698199; 14999-9_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698199?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 12 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698196; 14999-9_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698196?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 11 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698193; 14999-9_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698193?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 10 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698190; 14999-9_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698190?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 9 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698189; 14999-9_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698189?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 38 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698070; 14999-9_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698070?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 61 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698068; 14999-9_0061 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 61 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698068?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 37 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698067; 14999-9_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698067?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 36 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888698066; 14999-9_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698066?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 44 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888697990; 14999-9_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 44 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888697990?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 43 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888697985; 14999-9_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888697985?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 58 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696788; 14999-9_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 58 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696788?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ATLANTA BELTLINE, CITY OF ATLANTA, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA. [Part 5 of 11] T2 - ATLANTA BELTLINE, CITY OF ATLANTA, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA. AN - 888696733; 14996-6_0005 AB - PURPOSE: A fixed guideway transit and multi-use trails system within a 22-mile corridor encircling central Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia is proposed. The Atlanta BeltLine is part of a comprehensive economic development effort combining greenspace, trails, transit, and new development along historic rail segments. The project study area is defined as the quarter-mile on each side of the five existing or former railroad corridors that, together, encircle central Atlanta: the Decatur Belt, the Atlanta and West Point Railroad BeltLine, the Louisville and Nashville Railroad BeltLine, the CSX Corridor, and the Norfolk Southern Corridor. Collectively, these railroad corridors form a circuit that intersects existing Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) rail corridors near six stations: Lindbergh Center, Inman Park/Reynoldstown, King Memorial, West End, Bankhead, and Ashby. MARTA is working in partnership with Atlanta BeltLine, Inc., the City of Atlantas implementation agent for the overall BeltLine project, to advance the transit component through this EIS process. Tiering will allow the Federal Transit Administration and MARTA to focus on those decisions that are ready for analysis to support future right-of-way (ROW) preservation including: selection of either modern streetcar or light rail transit technology as the transit mode; selection of a general alignment of new transit and trails; and establishment of the ROW needs. A Tier 2 process will identify and assess trail design elements, transit station locations, vehicle types, storage facilities, site-specific impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts that cannot be avoided. Ten Transit Build Alternatives, formed of five alignments and two technology modes, are considered in this Tier 1 draft EIS. For the most part, the proposed alignments of the Trail Build Alternatives, of which there are three alternatives, are adjacent to and in the same ROW as the Transit Build Alternatives. The No Build Alternative is included for baseline comparison. The Transit Build Alternatives would accommodate approximately 50 proposed station locations with an average spacing of slightly less than a half mile. The proposed alignments are identical through the northeast, southeast, and southwest zones where they are located adjacent to or within the same railroad corridors and have the same points of connection to existing MARTA rail stations. Alignments within the northwest zone would be located adjacent to or within the existing CSX or Norfolk Southern freight rail ROWs. The recommended technology is streetcar due to its generally lower capital cost, greater navigational flexibility, and potential for fewer noise, vibration, and land use impacts. Preliminary cost estimates in 2009 dollars for the Transit Build Alternatives are $1.8 billion for light rail transit technology and $1.6 billion for streetcar technology. Estimates for the Trail Build Alternatives range from $129 million to $135 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve access and mobility for existing and future residents and workers by increasing in-city transit and bicycle/pedestrian options, and providing links in and between those networks. Social and economic opportunity at the individual, community, and city levels would be expanded. Annual ridership of 26.4 million and a daily reduction of 113,000 vehicle miles traveled are anticipated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Build Alternatives have the potential to affect active existing and future freight operations and infrastructure. In the northeast, southeast, and southwest zones, the total new ROW requirement for both the Transit and Trails Alternatives is estimated at 72.1 acres. In the northwest zone, the Transit Alternatives would require 23 to 25 acres, while the Trail Build Alternatives would require 13 to 16 acres. The project area contains 180 historic properties and 22 parks that could be impacted. Increases in property values and subsequent increases in property taxes and rents could lead to the displacement of low-income residents within the southeast and southwest zone neighborhoods. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110236, 243 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Community Development KW - Cultural Resources KW - Environmental Justice KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Georgia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696733?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ATLANTA+BELTLINE%2C+CITY+OF+ATLANTA%2C+FULTON+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=ATLANTA+BELTLINE%2C+CITY+OF+ATLANTA%2C+FULTON+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Atlanta, Georgia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ATLANTA BELTLINE, CITY OF ATLANTA, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA. [Part 4 of 11] T2 - ATLANTA BELTLINE, CITY OF ATLANTA, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA. AN - 888696730; 14996-6_0004 AB - PURPOSE: A fixed guideway transit and multi-use trails system within a 22-mile corridor encircling central Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia is proposed. The Atlanta BeltLine is part of a comprehensive economic development effort combining greenspace, trails, transit, and new development along historic rail segments. The project study area is defined as the quarter-mile on each side of the five existing or former railroad corridors that, together, encircle central Atlanta: the Decatur Belt, the Atlanta and West Point Railroad BeltLine, the Louisville and Nashville Railroad BeltLine, the CSX Corridor, and the Norfolk Southern Corridor. Collectively, these railroad corridors form a circuit that intersects existing Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) rail corridors near six stations: Lindbergh Center, Inman Park/Reynoldstown, King Memorial, West End, Bankhead, and Ashby. MARTA is working in partnership with Atlanta BeltLine, Inc., the City of Atlantas implementation agent for the overall BeltLine project, to advance the transit component through this EIS process. Tiering will allow the Federal Transit Administration and MARTA to focus on those decisions that are ready for analysis to support future right-of-way (ROW) preservation including: selection of either modern streetcar or light rail transit technology as the transit mode; selection of a general alignment of new transit and trails; and establishment of the ROW needs. A Tier 2 process will identify and assess trail design elements, transit station locations, vehicle types, storage facilities, site-specific impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts that cannot be avoided. Ten Transit Build Alternatives, formed of five alignments and two technology modes, are considered in this Tier 1 draft EIS. For the most part, the proposed alignments of the Trail Build Alternatives, of which there are three alternatives, are adjacent to and in the same ROW as the Transit Build Alternatives. The No Build Alternative is included for baseline comparison. The Transit Build Alternatives would accommodate approximately 50 proposed station locations with an average spacing of slightly less than a half mile. The proposed alignments are identical through the northeast, southeast, and southwest zones where they are located adjacent to or within the same railroad corridors and have the same points of connection to existing MARTA rail stations. Alignments within the northwest zone would be located adjacent to or within the existing CSX or Norfolk Southern freight rail ROWs. The recommended technology is streetcar due to its generally lower capital cost, greater navigational flexibility, and potential for fewer noise, vibration, and land use impacts. Preliminary cost estimates in 2009 dollars for the Transit Build Alternatives are $1.8 billion for light rail transit technology and $1.6 billion for streetcar technology. Estimates for the Trail Build Alternatives range from $129 million to $135 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve access and mobility for existing and future residents and workers by increasing in-city transit and bicycle/pedestrian options, and providing links in and between those networks. Social and economic opportunity at the individual, community, and city levels would be expanded. Annual ridership of 26.4 million and a daily reduction of 113,000 vehicle miles traveled are anticipated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Build Alternatives have the potential to affect active existing and future freight operations and infrastructure. In the northeast, southeast, and southwest zones, the total new ROW requirement for both the Transit and Trails Alternatives is estimated at 72.1 acres. In the northwest zone, the Transit Alternatives would require 23 to 25 acres, while the Trail Build Alternatives would require 13 to 16 acres. The project area contains 180 historic properties and 22 parks that could be impacted. Increases in property values and subsequent increases in property taxes and rents could lead to the displacement of low-income residents within the southeast and southwest zone neighborhoods. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110236, 243 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Community Development KW - Cultural Resources KW - Environmental Justice KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Georgia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696730?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ATLANTA+BELTLINE%2C+CITY+OF+ATLANTA%2C+FULTON+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=ATLANTA+BELTLINE%2C+CITY+OF+ATLANTA%2C+FULTON+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Atlanta, Georgia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ATLANTA BELTLINE, CITY OF ATLANTA, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA. [Part 3 of 11] T2 - ATLANTA BELTLINE, CITY OF ATLANTA, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA. AN - 888696725; 14996-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: A fixed guideway transit and multi-use trails system within a 22-mile corridor encircling central Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia is proposed. The Atlanta BeltLine is part of a comprehensive economic development effort combining greenspace, trails, transit, and new development along historic rail segments. The project study area is defined as the quarter-mile on each side of the five existing or former railroad corridors that, together, encircle central Atlanta: the Decatur Belt, the Atlanta and West Point Railroad BeltLine, the Louisville and Nashville Railroad BeltLine, the CSX Corridor, and the Norfolk Southern Corridor. Collectively, these railroad corridors form a circuit that intersects existing Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) rail corridors near six stations: Lindbergh Center, Inman Park/Reynoldstown, King Memorial, West End, Bankhead, and Ashby. MARTA is working in partnership with Atlanta BeltLine, Inc., the City of Atlantas implementation agent for the overall BeltLine project, to advance the transit component through this EIS process. Tiering will allow the Federal Transit Administration and MARTA to focus on those decisions that are ready for analysis to support future right-of-way (ROW) preservation including: selection of either modern streetcar or light rail transit technology as the transit mode; selection of a general alignment of new transit and trails; and establishment of the ROW needs. A Tier 2 process will identify and assess trail design elements, transit station locations, vehicle types, storage facilities, site-specific impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts that cannot be avoided. Ten Transit Build Alternatives, formed of five alignments and two technology modes, are considered in this Tier 1 draft EIS. For the most part, the proposed alignments of the Trail Build Alternatives, of which there are three alternatives, are adjacent to and in the same ROW as the Transit Build Alternatives. The No Build Alternative is included for baseline comparison. The Transit Build Alternatives would accommodate approximately 50 proposed station locations with an average spacing of slightly less than a half mile. The proposed alignments are identical through the northeast, southeast, and southwest zones where they are located adjacent to or within the same railroad corridors and have the same points of connection to existing MARTA rail stations. Alignments within the northwest zone would be located adjacent to or within the existing CSX or Norfolk Southern freight rail ROWs. The recommended technology is streetcar due to its generally lower capital cost, greater navigational flexibility, and potential for fewer noise, vibration, and land use impacts. Preliminary cost estimates in 2009 dollars for the Transit Build Alternatives are $1.8 billion for light rail transit technology and $1.6 billion for streetcar technology. Estimates for the Trail Build Alternatives range from $129 million to $135 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve access and mobility for existing and future residents and workers by increasing in-city transit and bicycle/pedestrian options, and providing links in and between those networks. Social and economic opportunity at the individual, community, and city levels would be expanded. Annual ridership of 26.4 million and a daily reduction of 113,000 vehicle miles traveled are anticipated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Build Alternatives have the potential to affect active existing and future freight operations and infrastructure. In the northeast, southeast, and southwest zones, the total new ROW requirement for both the Transit and Trails Alternatives is estimated at 72.1 acres. In the northwest zone, the Transit Alternatives would require 23 to 25 acres, while the Trail Build Alternatives would require 13 to 16 acres. The project area contains 180 historic properties and 22 parks that could be impacted. Increases in property values and subsequent increases in property taxes and rents could lead to the displacement of low-income residents within the southeast and southwest zone neighborhoods. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110236, 243 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Community Development KW - Cultural Resources KW - Environmental Justice KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Georgia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696725?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ATLANTA+BELTLINE%2C+CITY+OF+ATLANTA%2C+FULTON+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=ATLANTA+BELTLINE%2C+CITY+OF+ATLANTA%2C+FULTON+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Atlanta, Georgia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ATLANTA BELTLINE, CITY OF ATLANTA, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA. [Part 2 of 11] T2 - ATLANTA BELTLINE, CITY OF ATLANTA, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA. AN - 888696720; 14996-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A fixed guideway transit and multi-use trails system within a 22-mile corridor encircling central Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia is proposed. The Atlanta BeltLine is part of a comprehensive economic development effort combining greenspace, trails, transit, and new development along historic rail segments. The project study area is defined as the quarter-mile on each side of the five existing or former railroad corridors that, together, encircle central Atlanta: the Decatur Belt, the Atlanta and West Point Railroad BeltLine, the Louisville and Nashville Railroad BeltLine, the CSX Corridor, and the Norfolk Southern Corridor. Collectively, these railroad corridors form a circuit that intersects existing Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) rail corridors near six stations: Lindbergh Center, Inman Park/Reynoldstown, King Memorial, West End, Bankhead, and Ashby. MARTA is working in partnership with Atlanta BeltLine, Inc., the City of Atlantas implementation agent for the overall BeltLine project, to advance the transit component through this EIS process. Tiering will allow the Federal Transit Administration and MARTA to focus on those decisions that are ready for analysis to support future right-of-way (ROW) preservation including: selection of either modern streetcar or light rail transit technology as the transit mode; selection of a general alignment of new transit and trails; and establishment of the ROW needs. A Tier 2 process will identify and assess trail design elements, transit station locations, vehicle types, storage facilities, site-specific impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts that cannot be avoided. Ten Transit Build Alternatives, formed of five alignments and two technology modes, are considered in this Tier 1 draft EIS. For the most part, the proposed alignments of the Trail Build Alternatives, of which there are three alternatives, are adjacent to and in the same ROW as the Transit Build Alternatives. The No Build Alternative is included for baseline comparison. The Transit Build Alternatives would accommodate approximately 50 proposed station locations with an average spacing of slightly less than a half mile. The proposed alignments are identical through the northeast, southeast, and southwest zones where they are located adjacent to or within the same railroad corridors and have the same points of connection to existing MARTA rail stations. Alignments within the northwest zone would be located adjacent to or within the existing CSX or Norfolk Southern freight rail ROWs. The recommended technology is streetcar due to its generally lower capital cost, greater navigational flexibility, and potential for fewer noise, vibration, and land use impacts. Preliminary cost estimates in 2009 dollars for the Transit Build Alternatives are $1.8 billion for light rail transit technology and $1.6 billion for streetcar technology. Estimates for the Trail Build Alternatives range from $129 million to $135 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve access and mobility for existing and future residents and workers by increasing in-city transit and bicycle/pedestrian options, and providing links in and between those networks. Social and economic opportunity at the individual, community, and city levels would be expanded. Annual ridership of 26.4 million and a daily reduction of 113,000 vehicle miles traveled are anticipated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Build Alternatives have the potential to affect active existing and future freight operations and infrastructure. In the northeast, southeast, and southwest zones, the total new ROW requirement for both the Transit and Trails Alternatives is estimated at 72.1 acres. In the northwest zone, the Transit Alternatives would require 23 to 25 acres, while the Trail Build Alternatives would require 13 to 16 acres. The project area contains 180 historic properties and 22 parks that could be impacted. Increases in property values and subsequent increases in property taxes and rents could lead to the displacement of low-income residents within the southeast and southwest zone neighborhoods. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110236, 243 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Community Development KW - Cultural Resources KW - Environmental Justice KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Georgia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696720?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ATLANTA+BELTLINE%2C+CITY+OF+ATLANTA%2C+FULTON+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=ATLANTA+BELTLINE%2C+CITY+OF+ATLANTA%2C+FULTON+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Atlanta, Georgia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 46 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696468; 14999-9_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 46 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696468?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 45 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696459; 14999-9_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 45 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696459?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 7 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696163; 14999-9_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696163?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 52 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696138; 14999-9_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 52 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696138?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 51 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696134; 14999-9_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 51 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696134?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ATLANTA BELTLINE, CITY OF ATLANTA, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA. [Part 11 of 11] T2 - ATLANTA BELTLINE, CITY OF ATLANTA, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA. AN - 888696133; 14996-6_0011 AB - PURPOSE: A fixed guideway transit and multi-use trails system within a 22-mile corridor encircling central Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia is proposed. The Atlanta BeltLine is part of a comprehensive economic development effort combining greenspace, trails, transit, and new development along historic rail segments. The project study area is defined as the quarter-mile on each side of the five existing or former railroad corridors that, together, encircle central Atlanta: the Decatur Belt, the Atlanta and West Point Railroad BeltLine, the Louisville and Nashville Railroad BeltLine, the CSX Corridor, and the Norfolk Southern Corridor. Collectively, these railroad corridors form a circuit that intersects existing Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) rail corridors near six stations: Lindbergh Center, Inman Park/Reynoldstown, King Memorial, West End, Bankhead, and Ashby. MARTA is working in partnership with Atlanta BeltLine, Inc., the City of Atlantas implementation agent for the overall BeltLine project, to advance the transit component through this EIS process. Tiering will allow the Federal Transit Administration and MARTA to focus on those decisions that are ready for analysis to support future right-of-way (ROW) preservation including: selection of either modern streetcar or light rail transit technology as the transit mode; selection of a general alignment of new transit and trails; and establishment of the ROW needs. A Tier 2 process will identify and assess trail design elements, transit station locations, vehicle types, storage facilities, site-specific impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts that cannot be avoided. Ten Transit Build Alternatives, formed of five alignments and two technology modes, are considered in this Tier 1 draft EIS. For the most part, the proposed alignments of the Trail Build Alternatives, of which there are three alternatives, are adjacent to and in the same ROW as the Transit Build Alternatives. The No Build Alternative is included for baseline comparison. The Transit Build Alternatives would accommodate approximately 50 proposed station locations with an average spacing of slightly less than a half mile. The proposed alignments are identical through the northeast, southeast, and southwest zones where they are located adjacent to or within the same railroad corridors and have the same points of connection to existing MARTA rail stations. Alignments within the northwest zone would be located adjacent to or within the existing CSX or Norfolk Southern freight rail ROWs. The recommended technology is streetcar due to its generally lower capital cost, greater navigational flexibility, and potential for fewer noise, vibration, and land use impacts. Preliminary cost estimates in 2009 dollars for the Transit Build Alternatives are $1.8 billion for light rail transit technology and $1.6 billion for streetcar technology. Estimates for the Trail Build Alternatives range from $129 million to $135 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve access and mobility for existing and future residents and workers by increasing in-city transit and bicycle/pedestrian options, and providing links in and between those networks. Social and economic opportunity at the individual, community, and city levels would be expanded. Annual ridership of 26.4 million and a daily reduction of 113,000 vehicle miles traveled are anticipated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Build Alternatives have the potential to affect active existing and future freight operations and infrastructure. In the northeast, southeast, and southwest zones, the total new ROW requirement for both the Transit and Trails Alternatives is estimated at 72.1 acres. In the northwest zone, the Transit Alternatives would require 23 to 25 acres, while the Trail Build Alternatives would require 13 to 16 acres. The project area contains 180 historic properties and 22 parks that could be impacted. Increases in property values and subsequent increases in property taxes and rents could lead to the displacement of low-income residents within the southeast and southwest zone neighborhoods. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110236, 243 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Community Development KW - Cultural Resources KW - Environmental Justice KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Georgia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696133?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ATLANTA+BELTLINE%2C+CITY+OF+ATLANTA%2C+FULTON+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=ATLANTA+BELTLINE%2C+CITY+OF+ATLANTA%2C+FULTON+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Atlanta, Georgia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ATLANTA BELTLINE, CITY OF ATLANTA, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA. [Part 10 of 11] T2 - ATLANTA BELTLINE, CITY OF ATLANTA, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA. AN - 888696132; 14996-6_0010 AB - PURPOSE: A fixed guideway transit and multi-use trails system within a 22-mile corridor encircling central Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia is proposed. The Atlanta BeltLine is part of a comprehensive economic development effort combining greenspace, trails, transit, and new development along historic rail segments. The project study area is defined as the quarter-mile on each side of the five existing or former railroad corridors that, together, encircle central Atlanta: the Decatur Belt, the Atlanta and West Point Railroad BeltLine, the Louisville and Nashville Railroad BeltLine, the CSX Corridor, and the Norfolk Southern Corridor. Collectively, these railroad corridors form a circuit that intersects existing Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) rail corridors near six stations: Lindbergh Center, Inman Park/Reynoldstown, King Memorial, West End, Bankhead, and Ashby. MARTA is working in partnership with Atlanta BeltLine, Inc., the City of Atlantas implementation agent for the overall BeltLine project, to advance the transit component through this EIS process. Tiering will allow the Federal Transit Administration and MARTA to focus on those decisions that are ready for analysis to support future right-of-way (ROW) preservation including: selection of either modern streetcar or light rail transit technology as the transit mode; selection of a general alignment of new transit and trails; and establishment of the ROW needs. A Tier 2 process will identify and assess trail design elements, transit station locations, vehicle types, storage facilities, site-specific impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts that cannot be avoided. Ten Transit Build Alternatives, formed of five alignments and two technology modes, are considered in this Tier 1 draft EIS. For the most part, the proposed alignments of the Trail Build Alternatives, of which there are three alternatives, are adjacent to and in the same ROW as the Transit Build Alternatives. The No Build Alternative is included for baseline comparison. The Transit Build Alternatives would accommodate approximately 50 proposed station locations with an average spacing of slightly less than a half mile. The proposed alignments are identical through the northeast, southeast, and southwest zones where they are located adjacent to or within the same railroad corridors and have the same points of connection to existing MARTA rail stations. Alignments within the northwest zone would be located adjacent to or within the existing CSX or Norfolk Southern freight rail ROWs. The recommended technology is streetcar due to its generally lower capital cost, greater navigational flexibility, and potential for fewer noise, vibration, and land use impacts. Preliminary cost estimates in 2009 dollars for the Transit Build Alternatives are $1.8 billion for light rail transit technology and $1.6 billion for streetcar technology. Estimates for the Trail Build Alternatives range from $129 million to $135 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve access and mobility for existing and future residents and workers by increasing in-city transit and bicycle/pedestrian options, and providing links in and between those networks. Social and economic opportunity at the individual, community, and city levels would be expanded. Annual ridership of 26.4 million and a daily reduction of 113,000 vehicle miles traveled are anticipated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Build Alternatives have the potential to affect active existing and future freight operations and infrastructure. In the northeast, southeast, and southwest zones, the total new ROW requirement for both the Transit and Trails Alternatives is estimated at 72.1 acres. In the northwest zone, the Transit Alternatives would require 23 to 25 acres, while the Trail Build Alternatives would require 13 to 16 acres. The project area contains 180 historic properties and 22 parks that could be impacted. Increases in property values and subsequent increases in property taxes and rents could lead to the displacement of low-income residents within the southeast and southwest zone neighborhoods. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110236, 243 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Community Development KW - Cultural Resources KW - Environmental Justice KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Georgia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696132?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ATLANTA+BELTLINE%2C+CITY+OF+ATLANTA%2C+FULTON+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=ATLANTA+BELTLINE%2C+CITY+OF+ATLANTA%2C+FULTON+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Atlanta, Georgia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ATLANTA BELTLINE, CITY OF ATLANTA, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA. [Part 9 of 11] T2 - ATLANTA BELTLINE, CITY OF ATLANTA, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA. AN - 888696130; 14996-6_0009 AB - PURPOSE: A fixed guideway transit and multi-use trails system within a 22-mile corridor encircling central Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia is proposed. The Atlanta BeltLine is part of a comprehensive economic development effort combining greenspace, trails, transit, and new development along historic rail segments. The project study area is defined as the quarter-mile on each side of the five existing or former railroad corridors that, together, encircle central Atlanta: the Decatur Belt, the Atlanta and West Point Railroad BeltLine, the Louisville and Nashville Railroad BeltLine, the CSX Corridor, and the Norfolk Southern Corridor. Collectively, these railroad corridors form a circuit that intersects existing Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) rail corridors near six stations: Lindbergh Center, Inman Park/Reynoldstown, King Memorial, West End, Bankhead, and Ashby. MARTA is working in partnership with Atlanta BeltLine, Inc., the City of Atlantas implementation agent for the overall BeltLine project, to advance the transit component through this EIS process. Tiering will allow the Federal Transit Administration and MARTA to focus on those decisions that are ready for analysis to support future right-of-way (ROW) preservation including: selection of either modern streetcar or light rail transit technology as the transit mode; selection of a general alignment of new transit and trails; and establishment of the ROW needs. A Tier 2 process will identify and assess trail design elements, transit station locations, vehicle types, storage facilities, site-specific impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts that cannot be avoided. Ten Transit Build Alternatives, formed of five alignments and two technology modes, are considered in this Tier 1 draft EIS. For the most part, the proposed alignments of the Trail Build Alternatives, of which there are three alternatives, are adjacent to and in the same ROW as the Transit Build Alternatives. The No Build Alternative is included for baseline comparison. The Transit Build Alternatives would accommodate approximately 50 proposed station locations with an average spacing of slightly less than a half mile. The proposed alignments are identical through the northeast, southeast, and southwest zones where they are located adjacent to or within the same railroad corridors and have the same points of connection to existing MARTA rail stations. Alignments within the northwest zone would be located adjacent to or within the existing CSX or Norfolk Southern freight rail ROWs. The recommended technology is streetcar due to its generally lower capital cost, greater navigational flexibility, and potential for fewer noise, vibration, and land use impacts. Preliminary cost estimates in 2009 dollars for the Transit Build Alternatives are $1.8 billion for light rail transit technology and $1.6 billion for streetcar technology. Estimates for the Trail Build Alternatives range from $129 million to $135 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve access and mobility for existing and future residents and workers by increasing in-city transit and bicycle/pedestrian options, and providing links in and between those networks. Social and economic opportunity at the individual, community, and city levels would be expanded. Annual ridership of 26.4 million and a daily reduction of 113,000 vehicle miles traveled are anticipated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Build Alternatives have the potential to affect active existing and future freight operations and infrastructure. In the northeast, southeast, and southwest zones, the total new ROW requirement for both the Transit and Trails Alternatives is estimated at 72.1 acres. In the northwest zone, the Transit Alternatives would require 23 to 25 acres, while the Trail Build Alternatives would require 13 to 16 acres. The project area contains 180 historic properties and 22 parks that could be impacted. Increases in property values and subsequent increases in property taxes and rents could lead to the displacement of low-income residents within the southeast and southwest zone neighborhoods. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110236, 243 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Community Development KW - Cultural Resources KW - Environmental Justice KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Georgia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696130?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ATLANTA+BELTLINE%2C+CITY+OF+ATLANTA%2C+FULTON+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=ATLANTA+BELTLINE%2C+CITY+OF+ATLANTA%2C+FULTON+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Atlanta, Georgia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ATLANTA BELTLINE, CITY OF ATLANTA, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA. [Part 8 of 11] T2 - ATLANTA BELTLINE, CITY OF ATLANTA, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA. AN - 888696128; 14996-6_0008 AB - PURPOSE: A fixed guideway transit and multi-use trails system within a 22-mile corridor encircling central Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia is proposed. The Atlanta BeltLine is part of a comprehensive economic development effort combining greenspace, trails, transit, and new development along historic rail segments. The project study area is defined as the quarter-mile on each side of the five existing or former railroad corridors that, together, encircle central Atlanta: the Decatur Belt, the Atlanta and West Point Railroad BeltLine, the Louisville and Nashville Railroad BeltLine, the CSX Corridor, and the Norfolk Southern Corridor. Collectively, these railroad corridors form a circuit that intersects existing Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) rail corridors near six stations: Lindbergh Center, Inman Park/Reynoldstown, King Memorial, West End, Bankhead, and Ashby. MARTA is working in partnership with Atlanta BeltLine, Inc., the City of Atlantas implementation agent for the overall BeltLine project, to advance the transit component through this EIS process. Tiering will allow the Federal Transit Administration and MARTA to focus on those decisions that are ready for analysis to support future right-of-way (ROW) preservation including: selection of either modern streetcar or light rail transit technology as the transit mode; selection of a general alignment of new transit and trails; and establishment of the ROW needs. A Tier 2 process will identify and assess trail design elements, transit station locations, vehicle types, storage facilities, site-specific impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts that cannot be avoided. Ten Transit Build Alternatives, formed of five alignments and two technology modes, are considered in this Tier 1 draft EIS. For the most part, the proposed alignments of the Trail Build Alternatives, of which there are three alternatives, are adjacent to and in the same ROW as the Transit Build Alternatives. The No Build Alternative is included for baseline comparison. The Transit Build Alternatives would accommodate approximately 50 proposed station locations with an average spacing of slightly less than a half mile. The proposed alignments are identical through the northeast, southeast, and southwest zones where they are located adjacent to or within the same railroad corridors and have the same points of connection to existing MARTA rail stations. Alignments within the northwest zone would be located adjacent to or within the existing CSX or Norfolk Southern freight rail ROWs. The recommended technology is streetcar due to its generally lower capital cost, greater navigational flexibility, and potential for fewer noise, vibration, and land use impacts. Preliminary cost estimates in 2009 dollars for the Transit Build Alternatives are $1.8 billion for light rail transit technology and $1.6 billion for streetcar technology. Estimates for the Trail Build Alternatives range from $129 million to $135 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve access and mobility for existing and future residents and workers by increasing in-city transit and bicycle/pedestrian options, and providing links in and between those networks. Social and economic opportunity at the individual, community, and city levels would be expanded. Annual ridership of 26.4 million and a daily reduction of 113,000 vehicle miles traveled are anticipated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Build Alternatives have the potential to affect active existing and future freight operations and infrastructure. In the northeast, southeast, and southwest zones, the total new ROW requirement for both the Transit and Trails Alternatives is estimated at 72.1 acres. In the northwest zone, the Transit Alternatives would require 23 to 25 acres, while the Trail Build Alternatives would require 13 to 16 acres. The project area contains 180 historic properties and 22 parks that could be impacted. Increases in property values and subsequent increases in property taxes and rents could lead to the displacement of low-income residents within the southeast and southwest zone neighborhoods. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110236, 243 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Community Development KW - Cultural Resources KW - Environmental Justice KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Georgia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696128?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ATLANTA+BELTLINE%2C+CITY+OF+ATLANTA%2C+FULTON+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=ATLANTA+BELTLINE%2C+CITY+OF+ATLANTA%2C+FULTON+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Atlanta, Georgia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 48 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696126; 14999-9_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 48 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696126?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ATLANTA BELTLINE, CITY OF ATLANTA, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA. [Part 7 of 11] T2 - ATLANTA BELTLINE, CITY OF ATLANTA, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA. AN - 888696125; 14996-6_0007 AB - PURPOSE: A fixed guideway transit and multi-use trails system within a 22-mile corridor encircling central Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia is proposed. The Atlanta BeltLine is part of a comprehensive economic development effort combining greenspace, trails, transit, and new development along historic rail segments. The project study area is defined as the quarter-mile on each side of the five existing or former railroad corridors that, together, encircle central Atlanta: the Decatur Belt, the Atlanta and West Point Railroad BeltLine, the Louisville and Nashville Railroad BeltLine, the CSX Corridor, and the Norfolk Southern Corridor. Collectively, these railroad corridors form a circuit that intersects existing Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) rail corridors near six stations: Lindbergh Center, Inman Park/Reynoldstown, King Memorial, West End, Bankhead, and Ashby. MARTA is working in partnership with Atlanta BeltLine, Inc., the City of Atlantas implementation agent for the overall BeltLine project, to advance the transit component through this EIS process. Tiering will allow the Federal Transit Administration and MARTA to focus on those decisions that are ready for analysis to support future right-of-way (ROW) preservation including: selection of either modern streetcar or light rail transit technology as the transit mode; selection of a general alignment of new transit and trails; and establishment of the ROW needs. A Tier 2 process will identify and assess trail design elements, transit station locations, vehicle types, storage facilities, site-specific impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts that cannot be avoided. Ten Transit Build Alternatives, formed of five alignments and two technology modes, are considered in this Tier 1 draft EIS. For the most part, the proposed alignments of the Trail Build Alternatives, of which there are three alternatives, are adjacent to and in the same ROW as the Transit Build Alternatives. The No Build Alternative is included for baseline comparison. The Transit Build Alternatives would accommodate approximately 50 proposed station locations with an average spacing of slightly less than a half mile. The proposed alignments are identical through the northeast, southeast, and southwest zones where they are located adjacent to or within the same railroad corridors and have the same points of connection to existing MARTA rail stations. Alignments within the northwest zone would be located adjacent to or within the existing CSX or Norfolk Southern freight rail ROWs. The recommended technology is streetcar due to its generally lower capital cost, greater navigational flexibility, and potential for fewer noise, vibration, and land use impacts. Preliminary cost estimates in 2009 dollars for the Transit Build Alternatives are $1.8 billion for light rail transit technology and $1.6 billion for streetcar technology. Estimates for the Trail Build Alternatives range from $129 million to $135 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve access and mobility for existing and future residents and workers by increasing in-city transit and bicycle/pedestrian options, and providing links in and between those networks. Social and economic opportunity at the individual, community, and city levels would be expanded. Annual ridership of 26.4 million and a daily reduction of 113,000 vehicle miles traveled are anticipated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Build Alternatives have the potential to affect active existing and future freight operations and infrastructure. In the northeast, southeast, and southwest zones, the total new ROW requirement for both the Transit and Trails Alternatives is estimated at 72.1 acres. In the northwest zone, the Transit Alternatives would require 23 to 25 acres, while the Trail Build Alternatives would require 13 to 16 acres. The project area contains 180 historic properties and 22 parks that could be impacted. Increases in property values and subsequent increases in property taxes and rents could lead to the displacement of low-income residents within the southeast and southwest zone neighborhoods. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110236, 243 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Community Development KW - Cultural Resources KW - Environmental Justice KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Georgia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696125?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ATLANTA+BELTLINE%2C+CITY+OF+ATLANTA%2C+FULTON+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=ATLANTA+BELTLINE%2C+CITY+OF+ATLANTA%2C+FULTON+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Atlanta, Georgia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 47 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696123; 14999-9_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 47 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696123?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ATLANTA BELTLINE, CITY OF ATLANTA, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA. [Part 6 of 11] T2 - ATLANTA BELTLINE, CITY OF ATLANTA, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA. AN - 888696122; 14996-6_0006 AB - PURPOSE: A fixed guideway transit and multi-use trails system within a 22-mile corridor encircling central Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia is proposed. The Atlanta BeltLine is part of a comprehensive economic development effort combining greenspace, trails, transit, and new development along historic rail segments. The project study area is defined as the quarter-mile on each side of the five existing or former railroad corridors that, together, encircle central Atlanta: the Decatur Belt, the Atlanta and West Point Railroad BeltLine, the Louisville and Nashville Railroad BeltLine, the CSX Corridor, and the Norfolk Southern Corridor. Collectively, these railroad corridors form a circuit that intersects existing Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) rail corridors near six stations: Lindbergh Center, Inman Park/Reynoldstown, King Memorial, West End, Bankhead, and Ashby. MARTA is working in partnership with Atlanta BeltLine, Inc., the City of Atlantas implementation agent for the overall BeltLine project, to advance the transit component through this EIS process. Tiering will allow the Federal Transit Administration and MARTA to focus on those decisions that are ready for analysis to support future right-of-way (ROW) preservation including: selection of either modern streetcar or light rail transit technology as the transit mode; selection of a general alignment of new transit and trails; and establishment of the ROW needs. A Tier 2 process will identify and assess trail design elements, transit station locations, vehicle types, storage facilities, site-specific impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts that cannot be avoided. Ten Transit Build Alternatives, formed of five alignments and two technology modes, are considered in this Tier 1 draft EIS. For the most part, the proposed alignments of the Trail Build Alternatives, of which there are three alternatives, are adjacent to and in the same ROW as the Transit Build Alternatives. The No Build Alternative is included for baseline comparison. The Transit Build Alternatives would accommodate approximately 50 proposed station locations with an average spacing of slightly less than a half mile. The proposed alignments are identical through the northeast, southeast, and southwest zones where they are located adjacent to or within the same railroad corridors and have the same points of connection to existing MARTA rail stations. Alignments within the northwest zone would be located adjacent to or within the existing CSX or Norfolk Southern freight rail ROWs. The recommended technology is streetcar due to its generally lower capital cost, greater navigational flexibility, and potential for fewer noise, vibration, and land use impacts. Preliminary cost estimates in 2009 dollars for the Transit Build Alternatives are $1.8 billion for light rail transit technology and $1.6 billion for streetcar technology. Estimates for the Trail Build Alternatives range from $129 million to $135 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve access and mobility for existing and future residents and workers by increasing in-city transit and bicycle/pedestrian options, and providing links in and between those networks. Social and economic opportunity at the individual, community, and city levels would be expanded. Annual ridership of 26.4 million and a daily reduction of 113,000 vehicle miles traveled are anticipated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Build Alternatives have the potential to affect active existing and future freight operations and infrastructure. In the northeast, southeast, and southwest zones, the total new ROW requirement for both the Transit and Trails Alternatives is estimated at 72.1 acres. In the northwest zone, the Transit Alternatives would require 23 to 25 acres, while the Trail Build Alternatives would require 13 to 16 acres. The project area contains 180 historic properties and 22 parks that could be impacted. Increases in property values and subsequent increases in property taxes and rents could lead to the displacement of low-income residents within the southeast and southwest zone neighborhoods. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110236, 243 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Community Development KW - Cultural Resources KW - Environmental Justice KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Georgia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696122?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ATLANTA+BELTLINE%2C+CITY+OF+ATLANTA%2C+FULTON+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=ATLANTA+BELTLINE%2C+CITY+OF+ATLANTA%2C+FULTON+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Atlanta, Georgia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 6 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696111; 14999-9_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696111?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 5 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696108; 14999-9_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696108?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 4 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696055; 14999-9_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696055?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 14 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696052; 14999-9_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696052?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 3 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696049; 14999-9_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696049?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 13 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696048; 14999-9_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696048?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ATLANTA BELTLINE, CITY OF ATLANTA, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA. [Part 1 of 11] T2 - ATLANTA BELTLINE, CITY OF ATLANTA, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA. AN - 888696016; 14996-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A fixed guideway transit and multi-use trails system within a 22-mile corridor encircling central Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia is proposed. The Atlanta BeltLine is part of a comprehensive economic development effort combining greenspace, trails, transit, and new development along historic rail segments. The project study area is defined as the quarter-mile on each side of the five existing or former railroad corridors that, together, encircle central Atlanta: the Decatur Belt, the Atlanta and West Point Railroad BeltLine, the Louisville and Nashville Railroad BeltLine, the CSX Corridor, and the Norfolk Southern Corridor. Collectively, these railroad corridors form a circuit that intersects existing Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) rail corridors near six stations: Lindbergh Center, Inman Park/Reynoldstown, King Memorial, West End, Bankhead, and Ashby. MARTA is working in partnership with Atlanta BeltLine, Inc., the City of Atlantas implementation agent for the overall BeltLine project, to advance the transit component through this EIS process. Tiering will allow the Federal Transit Administration and MARTA to focus on those decisions that are ready for analysis to support future right-of-way (ROW) preservation including: selection of either modern streetcar or light rail transit technology as the transit mode; selection of a general alignment of new transit and trails; and establishment of the ROW needs. A Tier 2 process will identify and assess trail design elements, transit station locations, vehicle types, storage facilities, site-specific impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts that cannot be avoided. Ten Transit Build Alternatives, formed of five alignments and two technology modes, are considered in this Tier 1 draft EIS. For the most part, the proposed alignments of the Trail Build Alternatives, of which there are three alternatives, are adjacent to and in the same ROW as the Transit Build Alternatives. The No Build Alternative is included for baseline comparison. The Transit Build Alternatives would accommodate approximately 50 proposed station locations with an average spacing of slightly less than a half mile. The proposed alignments are identical through the northeast, southeast, and southwest zones where they are located adjacent to or within the same railroad corridors and have the same points of connection to existing MARTA rail stations. Alignments within the northwest zone would be located adjacent to or within the existing CSX or Norfolk Southern freight rail ROWs. The recommended technology is streetcar due to its generally lower capital cost, greater navigational flexibility, and potential for fewer noise, vibration, and land use impacts. Preliminary cost estimates in 2009 dollars for the Transit Build Alternatives are $1.8 billion for light rail transit technology and $1.6 billion for streetcar technology. Estimates for the Trail Build Alternatives range from $129 million to $135 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve access and mobility for existing and future residents and workers by increasing in-city transit and bicycle/pedestrian options, and providing links in and between those networks. Social and economic opportunity at the individual, community, and city levels would be expanded. Annual ridership of 26.4 million and a daily reduction of 113,000 vehicle miles traveled are anticipated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Build Alternatives have the potential to affect active existing and future freight operations and infrastructure. In the northeast, southeast, and southwest zones, the total new ROW requirement for both the Transit and Trails Alternatives is estimated at 72.1 acres. In the northwest zone, the Transit Alternatives would require 23 to 25 acres, while the Trail Build Alternatives would require 13 to 16 acres. The project area contains 180 historic properties and 22 parks that could be impacted. Increases in property values and subsequent increases in property taxes and rents could lead to the displacement of low-income residents within the southeast and southwest zone neighborhoods. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110236, 243 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Community Development KW - Cultural Resources KW - Environmental Justice KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Georgia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696016?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ATLANTA+BELTLINE%2C+CITY+OF+ATLANTA%2C+FULTON+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=ATLANTA+BELTLINE%2C+CITY+OF+ATLANTA%2C+FULTON+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Atlanta, Georgia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 18 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696011; 14999-9_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696011?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 17 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888696008; 14999-9_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696008?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 2 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888695819; 14999-9_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888695819?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 1 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888695815; 14999-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888695815?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 220 NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM (NHS) CORRIDOR BETWEEN I-68 AND CORRIDOR H, GRANT, HARDY, HAMPSHIRE, AND MINERAL COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA, AND ALLEGANY COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - US 220 NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM (NHS) CORRIDOR BETWEEN I-68 AND CORRIDOR H, GRANT, HARDY, HAMPSHIRE, AND MINERAL COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA, AND ALLEGANY COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 888695763; 15003-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a north-south transportation corridor along US 220 that would connect Interstate 68 (I-68) in Maryland and Corridor H in West Virginia is proposed. The study area encompasses over 835 square miles and includes portions of southwestern Allegany County, Maryland and all of Mineral County, and portions of Grant, Hampshire, and Hardy counties, West Virginia. Transportation deficiencies include numerous curves, reduced speeds, steep grades, few truck climbing lanes, inadequate shoulders, and substandard geometry. The new corridor could be comprised of roadways on new alignment, an upgrade of existing roadways, or some combination of upgrading existing roads and building new roads. The upgraded roadways would become part of the National Highway System (NHS). Corridor H, which is the southern terminus of the project, is part of the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS). This Tier 1 draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and three alternative corridors for the proposed facility. Corridor B begins with an interchange near existing Exits 41 and 42 along I-68 between LaVale and Cumberland, Maryland and extends southwest to Cresaptown crossing MD 53. At this point, it parallels US 220 to the west and Dans Mountain to the east. West of McCoole, Corridor B crosses MD 135, the North Branch of the Potomac River, and WV 46. Entering Mineral County, Corridor B is west of Keyser and continues to parallel US 220 on the western side. At the junction with WV 972, Corridor B continues southwest along US 50 and near Claysville, it begins to parallel WV 93, entering Grant County and extending to a terminus at Corridor H north of Scherr. Corridor C begins with an interchange near existing Exit 46 along I-68 east of Cumberland and extends south through the Willowbrook Road area near the Allegany College of Maryland to Evitts Creek and briefly parallels MD 51. Corridor C then turns west through Mexico Farms and crosses the North Branch of the Potomac River into Mineral County where it parallels WV 28. Continuing southwest, Corridor C parallels County Route 9 west of Short Gap, well east of Keyser. Crossing US 50/220 at Ridgeville and continuing southwest, Corridor C enters Grant County paralleling County Route 3 and connects with Corridor H just north of Maysville. Corridor D begins with an interchange near existing Exit 39 along I-68 near LaVale and closely follows Corridor B between Cresaptown and the US 50/220 coupling just south of Keyser. Corridor D originates on the eastern slope of Dans Mountain and extends south for a short distance on the western side of MD 53. From Cresaptown, Corridor D runs southwest paralleling US 220 to the west and Dans Mountain to the east. West of McCoole, Corridor D crosses MD 135, the North Branch of the Potomac River, and WV 46. Entering Mineral County, Corridor D runs west of Keyser and continues to parallel US 220 on the western side. At the junction with WV 972, Corridor D turns southeast along US 220, continues along US 50/220, County Route 50/4, and County Route 13 crossing into Hampshire County. Rejoining US 220/WV 28, Corridor D turns southward and crosses into Hardy County. Corridor D parallels US 220 until its connection with Corridor H just north of Moorefield. The estimated costs of a new highway facility are $482 to $500 million in Corridor B, $651 million in Corridor C, and $630 to $648 million in Corridor D. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inadequate roadway capacity, safety deficiencies, and limited regional mobility. The additional north-south system linkage would complete the regional road network and support economic development in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Corridor development would impact 118 to 152 acres of wetlands, 300,239 to 448,803 feet of streams, 719 to 2,244 acres of floodplains, four to eight flood control dams, 127 to 720 acres of rangeland, 9,890 to 11,409 acres of forests, 1,491 to 3,335 acres of prime farmland, eight to 10 parks and recreation areas, four to 21 historic sites, 5,338 to 7,709 acres with very high or high archaeological potential, and 58 to 70 community facilities. Residential and commercial displacements would result from impacts to built-up land: 4,060 acres in Corridor B; 2,940 acres in Corridor C; and 3,820 acres in Corridor D. Impacts to community cohesion would occur around new interchanges and major side road connections. Construction in any of the corridors could have a disproportionate effect to minority and low-income populations. 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.), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110243, Draft EIS--582 pages, Appendices and Maps--CD-ROM, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Appalachian Development Highways KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Maryland KW - West Virginia KW - Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888695763?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+220+NATIONAL+HIGHWAY+SYSTEM+%28NHS%29+CORRIDOR+BETWEEN+I-68+AND+CORRIDOR+H%2C+GRANT%2C+HARDY%2C+HAMPSHIRE%2C+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+ALLEGANY+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=US+220+NATIONAL+HIGHWAY+SYSTEM+%28NHS%29+CORRIDOR+BETWEEN+I-68+AND+CORRIDOR+H%2C+GRANT%2C+HARDY%2C+HAMPSHIRE%2C+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+ALLEGANY+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&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 - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. [Part 59 of 61] T2 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 888695761; 14999-9_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 59 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888695761?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 220 NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM (NHS) CORRIDOR BETWEEN I-68 AND CORRIDOR H, GRANT, HARDY, HAMPSHIRE, AND MINERAL COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA, AND ALLEGANY COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - US 220 NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM (NHS) CORRIDOR BETWEEN I-68 AND CORRIDOR H, GRANT, HARDY, HAMPSHIRE, AND MINERAL COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA, AND ALLEGANY COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 888695759; 15003-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a north-south transportation corridor along US 220 that would connect Interstate 68 (I-68) in Maryland and Corridor H in West Virginia is proposed. The study area encompasses over 835 square miles and includes portions of southwestern Allegany County, Maryland and all of Mineral County, and portions of Grant, Hampshire, and Hardy counties, West Virginia. Transportation deficiencies include numerous curves, reduced speeds, steep grades, few truck climbing lanes, inadequate shoulders, and substandard geometry. The new corridor could be comprised of roadways on new alignment, an upgrade of existing roadways, or some combination of upgrading existing roads and building new roads. The upgraded roadways would become part of the National Highway System (NHS). Corridor H, which is the southern terminus of the project, is part of the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS). This Tier 1 draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and three alternative corridors for the proposed facility. Corridor B begins with an interchange near existing Exits 41 and 42 along I-68 between LaVale and Cumberland, Maryland and extends southwest to Cresaptown crossing MD 53. At this point, it parallels US 220 to the west and Dans Mountain to the east. West of McCoole, Corridor B crosses MD 135, the North Branch of the Potomac River, and WV 46. Entering Mineral County, Corridor B is west of Keyser and continues to parallel US 220 on the western side. At the junction with WV 972, Corridor B continues southwest along US 50 and near Claysville, it begins to parallel WV 93, entering Grant County and extending to a terminus at Corridor H north of Scherr. Corridor C begins with an interchange near existing Exit 46 along I-68 east of Cumberland and extends south through the Willowbrook Road area near the Allegany College of Maryland to Evitts Creek and briefly parallels MD 51. Corridor C then turns west through Mexico Farms and crosses the North Branch of the Potomac River into Mineral County where it parallels WV 28. Continuing southwest, Corridor C parallels County Route 9 west of Short Gap, well east of Keyser. Crossing US 50/220 at Ridgeville and continuing southwest, Corridor C enters Grant County paralleling County Route 3 and connects with Corridor H just north of Maysville. Corridor D begins with an interchange near existing Exit 39 along I-68 near LaVale and closely follows Corridor B between Cresaptown and the US 50/220 coupling just south of Keyser. Corridor D originates on the eastern slope of Dans Mountain and extends south for a short distance on the western side of MD 53. From Cresaptown, Corridor D runs southwest paralleling US 220 to the west and Dans Mountain to the east. West of McCoole, Corridor D crosses MD 135, the North Branch of the Potomac River, and WV 46. Entering Mineral County, Corridor D runs west of Keyser and continues to parallel US 220 on the western side. At the junction with WV 972, Corridor D turns southeast along US 220, continues along US 50/220, County Route 50/4, and County Route 13 crossing into Hampshire County. Rejoining US 220/WV 28, Corridor D turns southward and crosses into Hardy County. Corridor D parallels US 220 until its connection with Corridor H just north of Moorefield. The estimated costs of a new highway facility are $482 to $500 million in Corridor B, $651 million in Corridor C, and $630 to $648 million in Corridor D. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inadequate roadway capacity, safety deficiencies, and limited regional mobility. The additional north-south system linkage would complete the regional road network and support economic development in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Corridor development would impact 118 to 152 acres of wetlands, 300,239 to 448,803 feet of streams, 719 to 2,244 acres of floodplains, four to eight flood control dams, 127 to 720 acres of rangeland, 9,890 to 11,409 acres of forests, 1,491 to 3,335 acres of prime farmland, eight to 10 parks and recreation areas, four to 21 historic sites, 5,338 to 7,709 acres with very high or high archaeological potential, and 58 to 70 community facilities. Residential and commercial displacements would result from impacts to built-up land: 4,060 acres in Corridor B; 2,940 acres in Corridor C; and 3,820 acres in Corridor D. Impacts to community cohesion would occur around new interchanges and major side road connections. Construction in any of the corridors could have a disproportionate effect to minority and low-income populations. 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.), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110243, Draft EIS--582 pages, Appendices and Maps--CD-ROM, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Appalachian Development Highways KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Maryland KW - West Virginia KW - Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888695759?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+220+NATIONAL+HIGHWAY+SYSTEM+%28NHS%29+CORRIDOR+BETWEEN+I-68+AND+CORRIDOR+H%2C+GRANT%2C+HARDY%2C+HAMPSHIRE%2C+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+ALLEGANY+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=US+220+NATIONAL+HIGHWAY+SYSTEM+%28NHS%29+CORRIDOR+BETWEEN+I-68+AND+CORRIDOR+H%2C+GRANT%2C+HARDY%2C+HAMPSHIRE%2C+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+ALLEGANY+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&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 - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 220 NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM (NHS) CORRIDOR BETWEEN I-68 AND CORRIDOR H, GRANT, HARDY, HAMPSHIRE, AND MINERAL COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA, AND ALLEGANY COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - US 220 NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM (NHS) CORRIDOR BETWEEN I-68 AND CORRIDOR H, GRANT, HARDY, HAMPSHIRE, AND MINERAL COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA, AND ALLEGANY COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 888695755; 15003-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a north-south transportation corridor along US 220 that would connect Interstate 68 (I-68) in Maryland and Corridor H in West Virginia is proposed. The study area encompasses over 835 square miles and includes portions of southwestern Allegany County, Maryland and all of Mineral County, and portions of Grant, Hampshire, and Hardy counties, West Virginia. Transportation deficiencies include numerous curves, reduced speeds, steep grades, few truck climbing lanes, inadequate shoulders, and substandard geometry. The new corridor could be comprised of roadways on new alignment, an upgrade of existing roadways, or some combination of upgrading existing roads and building new roads. The upgraded roadways would become part of the National Highway System (NHS). Corridor H, which is the southern terminus of the project, is part of the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS). This Tier 1 draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and three alternative corridors for the proposed facility. Corridor B begins with an interchange near existing Exits 41 and 42 along I-68 between LaVale and Cumberland, Maryland and extends southwest to Cresaptown crossing MD 53. At this point, it parallels US 220 to the west and Dans Mountain to the east. West of McCoole, Corridor B crosses MD 135, the North Branch of the Potomac River, and WV 46. Entering Mineral County, Corridor B is west of Keyser and continues to parallel US 220 on the western side. At the junction with WV 972, Corridor B continues southwest along US 50 and near Claysville, it begins to parallel WV 93, entering Grant County and extending to a terminus at Corridor H north of Scherr. Corridor C begins with an interchange near existing Exit 46 along I-68 east of Cumberland and extends south through the Willowbrook Road area near the Allegany College of Maryland to Evitts Creek and briefly parallels MD 51. Corridor C then turns west through Mexico Farms and crosses the North Branch of the Potomac River into Mineral County where it parallels WV 28. Continuing southwest, Corridor C parallels County Route 9 west of Short Gap, well east of Keyser. Crossing US 50/220 at Ridgeville and continuing southwest, Corridor C enters Grant County paralleling County Route 3 and connects with Corridor H just north of Maysville. Corridor D begins with an interchange near existing Exit 39 along I-68 near LaVale and closely follows Corridor B between Cresaptown and the US 50/220 coupling just south of Keyser. Corridor D originates on the eastern slope of Dans Mountain and extends south for a short distance on the western side of MD 53. From Cresaptown, Corridor D runs southwest paralleling US 220 to the west and Dans Mountain to the east. West of McCoole, Corridor D crosses MD 135, the North Branch of the Potomac River, and WV 46. Entering Mineral County, Corridor D runs west of Keyser and continues to parallel US 220 on the western side. At the junction with WV 972, Corridor D turns southeast along US 220, continues along US 50/220, County Route 50/4, and County Route 13 crossing into Hampshire County. Rejoining US 220/WV 28, Corridor D turns southward and crosses into Hardy County. Corridor D parallels US 220 until its connection with Corridor H just north of Moorefield. The estimated costs of a new highway facility are $482 to $500 million in Corridor B, $651 million in Corridor C, and $630 to $648 million in Corridor D. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inadequate roadway capacity, safety deficiencies, and limited regional mobility. The additional north-south system linkage would complete the regional road network and support economic development in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Corridor development would impact 118 to 152 acres of wetlands, 300,239 to 448,803 feet of streams, 719 to 2,244 acres of floodplains, four to eight flood control dams, 127 to 720 acres of rangeland, 9,890 to 11,409 acres of forests, 1,491 to 3,335 acres of prime farmland, eight to 10 parks and recreation areas, four to 21 historic sites, 5,338 to 7,709 acres with very high or high archaeological potential, and 58 to 70 community facilities. Residential and commercial displacements would result from impacts to built-up land: 4,060 acres in Corridor B; 2,940 acres in Corridor C; and 3,820 acres in Corridor D. Impacts to community cohesion would occur around new interchanges and major side road connections. Construction in any of the corridors could have a disproportionate effect to minority and low-income populations. 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.), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110243, Draft EIS--582 pages, Appendices and Maps--CD-ROM, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Appalachian Development Highways KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Maryland KW - West Virginia KW - Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888695755?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+220+NATIONAL+HIGHWAY+SYSTEM+%28NHS%29+CORRIDOR+BETWEEN+I-68+AND+CORRIDOR+H%2C+GRANT%2C+HARDY%2C+HAMPSHIRE%2C+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+ALLEGANY+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=US+220+NATIONAL+HIGHWAY+SYSTEM+%28NHS%29+CORRIDOR+BETWEEN+I-68+AND+CORRIDOR+H%2C+GRANT%2C+HARDY%2C+HAMPSHIRE%2C+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+ALLEGANY+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&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 - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA. AN - 16388284; 14999 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 1,103 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming, southern Idaho, and possibly northern Nevada are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of seven BLM Resource Management Plans (Casper, Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), five BLM framework plans, and two Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan and Wells Resource Management Plan could also be required. Due to the high load requirements necessary for the Gateway West Project, multiple high-capacity lines on separate corridors are required in key segments. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar substation and take two paths to the Aeolus substation: one to the east (Segment 1E) to access new wind energy; and one (Segment 1W) that would follow or parallel the West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction. It would then proceed as a double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus. At Populus, the Gateway West Project would split into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: Segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway substation through the Borah and Midpoint substations, while Segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill substation to the Hemingway substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS evaluates route alternatives for some segments, tower structure variations, and construction schedule variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact existing cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross several important historic trails, including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110239, 2,076 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-11/038+1430 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16388284?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ATLANTA BELTLINE, CITY OF ATLANTA, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA. AN - 16372145; 14996 AB - PURPOSE: A fixed guideway transit and multi-use trails system within a 22-mile corridor encircling central Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia is proposed. The Atlanta BeltLine is part of a comprehensive economic development effort combining greenspace, trails, transit, and new development along historic rail segments. The project study area is defined as the quarter-mile on each side of the five existing or former railroad corridors that, together, encircle central Atlanta: the Decatur Belt, the Atlanta and West Point Railroad BeltLine, the Louisville and Nashville Railroad BeltLine, the CSX Corridor, and the Norfolk Southern Corridor. Collectively, these railroad corridors form a circuit that intersects existing Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) rail corridors near six stations: Lindbergh Center, Inman Park/Reynoldstown, King Memorial, West End, Bankhead, and Ashby. MARTA is working in partnership with Atlanta BeltLine, Inc., the City of Atlantas implementation agent for the overall BeltLine project, to advance the transit component through this EIS process. Tiering will allow the Federal Transit Administration and MARTA to focus on those decisions that are ready for analysis to support future right-of-way (ROW) preservation including: selection of either modern streetcar or light rail transit technology as the transit mode; selection of a general alignment of new transit and trails; and establishment of the ROW needs. A Tier 2 process will identify and assess trail design elements, transit station locations, vehicle types, storage facilities, site-specific impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts that cannot be avoided. Ten Transit Build Alternatives, formed of five alignments and two technology modes, are considered in this Tier 1 draft EIS. For the most part, the proposed alignments of the Trail Build Alternatives, of which there are three alternatives, are adjacent to and in the same ROW as the Transit Build Alternatives. The No Build Alternative is included for baseline comparison. The Transit Build Alternatives would accommodate approximately 50 proposed station locations with an average spacing of slightly less than a half mile. The proposed alignments are identical through the northeast, southeast, and southwest zones where they are located adjacent to or within the same railroad corridors and have the same points of connection to existing MARTA rail stations. Alignments within the northwest zone would be located adjacent to or within the existing CSX or Norfolk Southern freight rail ROWs. The recommended technology is streetcar due to its generally lower capital cost, greater navigational flexibility, and potential for fewer noise, vibration, and land use impacts. Preliminary cost estimates in 2009 dollars for the Transit Build Alternatives are $1.8 billion for light rail transit technology and $1.6 billion for streetcar technology. Estimates for the Trail Build Alternatives range from $129 million to $135 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve access and mobility for existing and future residents and workers by increasing in-city transit and bicycle/pedestrian options, and providing links in and between those networks. Social and economic opportunity at the individual, community, and city levels would be expanded. Annual ridership of 26.4 million and a daily reduction of 113,000 vehicle miles traveled are anticipated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Build Alternatives have the potential to affect active existing and future freight operations and infrastructure. In the northeast, southeast, and southwest zones, the total new ROW requirement for both the Transit and Trails Alternatives is estimated at 72.1 acres. In the northwest zone, the Transit Alternatives would require 23 to 25 acres, while the Trail Build Alternatives would require 13 to 16 acres. The project area contains 180 historic properties and 22 parks that could be impacted. Increases in property values and subsequent increases in property taxes and rents could lead to the displacement of low-income residents within the southeast and southwest zone neighborhoods. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110236, 243 pages, July 29, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Community Development KW - Cultural Resources KW - Environmental Justice KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Georgia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16372145?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ATLANTA+BELTLINE%2C+CITY+OF+ATLANTA%2C+FULTON+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=ATLANTA+BELTLINE%2C+CITY+OF+ATLANTA%2C+FULTON+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Atlanta, Georgia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Effective use of Parabolic Equation Methods for Noise Prediction T2 - 2011 Annual Conference of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering's (NOISE-CON 2011) AN - 1312964070; 6061012 JF - 2011 Annual Conference of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering's (NOISE-CON 2011) AU - Wilson, Keith AU - Pettit, Chris Y1 - 2011/07/25/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Jul 25 KW - Noise levels KW - Mathematical models UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312964070?accountid=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=2011+Annual+Conference+of+the+Institute+of+Noise+Control+Engineering%27s+%28NOISE-CON+2011%29&rft.atitle=Effective+use+of+Parabolic+Equation+Methods+for+Noise+Prediction&rft.au=Wilson%2C+Keith%3BPettit%2C+Chris&rft.aulast=Wilson&rft.aufirst=Keith&rft.date=2011-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2011+Annual+Conference+of+the+Institute+of+Noise+Control+Engineering%27s+%28NOISE-CON+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.inceusa.org/nc11/documents/2011TechnicalSchedule_online_001.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 9 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888701318; 14987-7_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888701318?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 8 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888701317; 14987-7_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888701317?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 7 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888701316; 14987-7_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888701316?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 6 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888701315; 14987-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888701315?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 5 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888701314; 14987-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888701314?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 15 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888700567; 14987-7_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888700567?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 1 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888698116; 14987-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698116?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 41 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, MEMORIAL DRIVE TO COUNTY M, BROWN COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - US 41 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, MEMORIAL DRIVE TO COUNTY M, BROWN COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 888698115; 14994-4_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of a 3.3-mile segment of US Highway 41 from Memorial Drive to County Road M in Brown County, Wisconsin is proposed. Within the project area, US 41 and Interstate 43 (I-43) serve the City of Green Bay, Village of Howard, Village of Suamico, and surrounding communities. US 41 and I-43 also provide a vital north-south transportation link between the Chicago-Milwaukee metropolitan area, the Fox River Valley industrial area, and recreational areas in northeastern Wisconsin and upper Michigan. US 41 is a multi-lane backbone highway and a National Highway System route that is also being planned for future conversion to an interstate highway between Milwaukee and I-43 in Green Bay. The existing US 41 freeway and its interchanges were constructed over 35 years ago and do not meet current design standards. Proposed improvements include reconstructing the interchanges at US 141/Velp Avenue, I-43, and County Road M, adding an additional lane in each direction on the US 41 mainline, adding auxiliary lanes along US 41 in both directions, constructing new bridges along US 41 over US 141/Velp Avenue, CN Railroad, Wietor Drive, I-43, and Duck Creek, and replacing the County EB/Lakeview Drive structure and the County Road M structure over US 41. In addition, roundabouts would be constructed at the US 141/Velp Avenue interchange ramp terminals, the US 141/Velp Avenue/Memorial Drive intersection east of US 41, the County Road M interchange ramp terminals, and the frontage road intersections with County Road M. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative E is the preferred alternative and would involve expanding US 41 with a full reconfiguration of the I-43/US 41 interchange. The US 41 expansion would include a revised northbound alignment, and a raised northbound gradeline to accommodate the southbound US 41 to southbound I-43 ramp within the existing interchange footprint and the northbound I-43 to southbound US 41 flyover ramp piers and foundations. All loop ramps would be eliminated and the I-43/US 41 system interchange would be reconstructed with directional ramps. The existing access between US 141/Velp Avenue and I-43 via US 41 would be eliminated and Atkinson Avenue or an alternate route would be used to access southbound I-43 from US 141/Velp Avenue or to access US 141/Velp Avenue from northbound I-43. The construction cost of Alternative E is estimated at $230 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstructed highway and interchanges would address geometric and operational deficiencies, improve traffic flow and safety, and help meet traffic demand and mobility needs including future conversion of US 41 to an interstate highway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way for Alternative E would result in conversion of 37 acres of land, two stream crossings, one stream realignment, and impacts to 54 acres of wetlands. Habitat for Blanding's turtle, wood turtle, common tern, black-crowned night heron, and cattle egret could be affected. Construction would impact 12.2 acres of park land and conservation areas and require relocation of 13 residences and one business. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110234, 298 pages and maps, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-11-01-F KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698115?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+41+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MEMORIAL+DRIVE+TO+COUNTY+M%2C+BROWN+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=US+41+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MEMORIAL+DRIVE+TO+COUNTY+M%2C+BROWN+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 41 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, MEMORIAL DRIVE TO COUNTY M, BROWN COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - US 41 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, MEMORIAL DRIVE TO COUNTY M, BROWN COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 888698110; 14994-4_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of a 3.3-mile segment of US Highway 41 from Memorial Drive to County Road M in Brown County, Wisconsin is proposed. Within the project area, US 41 and Interstate 43 (I-43) serve the City of Green Bay, Village of Howard, Village of Suamico, and surrounding communities. US 41 and I-43 also provide a vital north-south transportation link between the Chicago-Milwaukee metropolitan area, the Fox River Valley industrial area, and recreational areas in northeastern Wisconsin and upper Michigan. US 41 is a multi-lane backbone highway and a National Highway System route that is also being planned for future conversion to an interstate highway between Milwaukee and I-43 in Green Bay. The existing US 41 freeway and its interchanges were constructed over 35 years ago and do not meet current design standards. Proposed improvements include reconstructing the interchanges at US 141/Velp Avenue, I-43, and County Road M, adding an additional lane in each direction on the US 41 mainline, adding auxiliary lanes along US 41 in both directions, constructing new bridges along US 41 over US 141/Velp Avenue, CN Railroad, Wietor Drive, I-43, and Duck Creek, and replacing the County EB/Lakeview Drive structure and the County Road M structure over US 41. In addition, roundabouts would be constructed at the US 141/Velp Avenue interchange ramp terminals, the US 141/Velp Avenue/Memorial Drive intersection east of US 41, the County Road M interchange ramp terminals, and the frontage road intersections with County Road M. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative E is the preferred alternative and would involve expanding US 41 with a full reconfiguration of the I-43/US 41 interchange. The US 41 expansion would include a revised northbound alignment, and a raised northbound gradeline to accommodate the southbound US 41 to southbound I-43 ramp within the existing interchange footprint and the northbound I-43 to southbound US 41 flyover ramp piers and foundations. All loop ramps would be eliminated and the I-43/US 41 system interchange would be reconstructed with directional ramps. The existing access between US 141/Velp Avenue and I-43 via US 41 would be eliminated and Atkinson Avenue or an alternate route would be used to access southbound I-43 from US 141/Velp Avenue or to access US 141/Velp Avenue from northbound I-43. The construction cost of Alternative E is estimated at $230 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstructed highway and interchanges would address geometric and operational deficiencies, improve traffic flow and safety, and help meet traffic demand and mobility needs including future conversion of US 41 to an interstate highway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way for Alternative E would result in conversion of 37 acres of land, two stream crossings, one stream realignment, and impacts to 54 acres of wetlands. Habitat for Blanding's turtle, wood turtle, common tern, black-crowned night heron, and cattle egret could be affected. Construction would impact 12.2 acres of park land and conservation areas and require relocation of 13 residences and one business. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110234, 298 pages and maps, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-11-01-F KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698110?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+41+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MEMORIAL+DRIVE+TO+COUNTY+M%2C+BROWN+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=US+41+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MEMORIAL+DRIVE+TO+COUNTY+M%2C+BROWN+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 41 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, MEMORIAL DRIVE TO COUNTY M, BROWN COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - US 41 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, MEMORIAL DRIVE TO COUNTY M, BROWN COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 888698109; 14994-4_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of a 3.3-mile segment of US Highway 41 from Memorial Drive to County Road M in Brown County, Wisconsin is proposed. Within the project area, US 41 and Interstate 43 (I-43) serve the City of Green Bay, Village of Howard, Village of Suamico, and surrounding communities. US 41 and I-43 also provide a vital north-south transportation link between the Chicago-Milwaukee metropolitan area, the Fox River Valley industrial area, and recreational areas in northeastern Wisconsin and upper Michigan. US 41 is a multi-lane backbone highway and a National Highway System route that is also being planned for future conversion to an interstate highway between Milwaukee and I-43 in Green Bay. The existing US 41 freeway and its interchanges were constructed over 35 years ago and do not meet current design standards. Proposed improvements include reconstructing the interchanges at US 141/Velp Avenue, I-43, and County Road M, adding an additional lane in each direction on the US 41 mainline, adding auxiliary lanes along US 41 in both directions, constructing new bridges along US 41 over US 141/Velp Avenue, CN Railroad, Wietor Drive, I-43, and Duck Creek, and replacing the County EB/Lakeview Drive structure and the County Road M structure over US 41. In addition, roundabouts would be constructed at the US 141/Velp Avenue interchange ramp terminals, the US 141/Velp Avenue/Memorial Drive intersection east of US 41, the County Road M interchange ramp terminals, and the frontage road intersections with County Road M. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative E is the preferred alternative and would involve expanding US 41 with a full reconfiguration of the I-43/US 41 interchange. The US 41 expansion would include a revised northbound alignment, and a raised northbound gradeline to accommodate the southbound US 41 to southbound I-43 ramp within the existing interchange footprint and the northbound I-43 to southbound US 41 flyover ramp piers and foundations. All loop ramps would be eliminated and the I-43/US 41 system interchange would be reconstructed with directional ramps. The existing access between US 141/Velp Avenue and I-43 via US 41 would be eliminated and Atkinson Avenue or an alternate route would be used to access southbound I-43 from US 141/Velp Avenue or to access US 141/Velp Avenue from northbound I-43. The construction cost of Alternative E is estimated at $230 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstructed highway and interchanges would address geometric and operational deficiencies, improve traffic flow and safety, and help meet traffic demand and mobility needs including future conversion of US 41 to an interstate highway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way for Alternative E would result in conversion of 37 acres of land, two stream crossings, one stream realignment, and impacts to 54 acres of wetlands. Habitat for Blanding's turtle, wood turtle, common tern, black-crowned night heron, and cattle egret could be affected. Construction would impact 12.2 acres of park land and conservation areas and require relocation of 13 residences and one business. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110234, 298 pages and maps, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-11-01-F KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698109?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+41+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MEMORIAL+DRIVE+TO+COUNTY+M%2C+BROWN+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=US+41+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MEMORIAL+DRIVE+TO+COUNTY+M%2C+BROWN+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 41 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, MEMORIAL DRIVE TO COUNTY M, BROWN COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - US 41 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, MEMORIAL DRIVE TO COUNTY M, BROWN COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 888698108; 14994-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of a 3.3-mile segment of US Highway 41 from Memorial Drive to County Road M in Brown County, Wisconsin is proposed. Within the project area, US 41 and Interstate 43 (I-43) serve the City of Green Bay, Village of Howard, Village of Suamico, and surrounding communities. US 41 and I-43 also provide a vital north-south transportation link between the Chicago-Milwaukee metropolitan area, the Fox River Valley industrial area, and recreational areas in northeastern Wisconsin and upper Michigan. US 41 is a multi-lane backbone highway and a National Highway System route that is also being planned for future conversion to an interstate highway between Milwaukee and I-43 in Green Bay. The existing US 41 freeway and its interchanges were constructed over 35 years ago and do not meet current design standards. Proposed improvements include reconstructing the interchanges at US 141/Velp Avenue, I-43, and County Road M, adding an additional lane in each direction on the US 41 mainline, adding auxiliary lanes along US 41 in both directions, constructing new bridges along US 41 over US 141/Velp Avenue, CN Railroad, Wietor Drive, I-43, and Duck Creek, and replacing the County EB/Lakeview Drive structure and the County Road M structure over US 41. In addition, roundabouts would be constructed at the US 141/Velp Avenue interchange ramp terminals, the US 141/Velp Avenue/Memorial Drive intersection east of US 41, the County Road M interchange ramp terminals, and the frontage road intersections with County Road M. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative E is the preferred alternative and would involve expanding US 41 with a full reconfiguration of the I-43/US 41 interchange. The US 41 expansion would include a revised northbound alignment, and a raised northbound gradeline to accommodate the southbound US 41 to southbound I-43 ramp within the existing interchange footprint and the northbound I-43 to southbound US 41 flyover ramp piers and foundations. All loop ramps would be eliminated and the I-43/US 41 system interchange would be reconstructed with directional ramps. The existing access between US 141/Velp Avenue and I-43 via US 41 would be eliminated and Atkinson Avenue or an alternate route would be used to access southbound I-43 from US 141/Velp Avenue or to access US 141/Velp Avenue from northbound I-43. The construction cost of Alternative E is estimated at $230 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstructed highway and interchanges would address geometric and operational deficiencies, improve traffic flow and safety, and help meet traffic demand and mobility needs including future conversion of US 41 to an interstate highway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way for Alternative E would result in conversion of 37 acres of land, two stream crossings, one stream realignment, and impacts to 54 acres of wetlands. Habitat for Blanding's turtle, wood turtle, common tern, black-crowned night heron, and cattle egret could be affected. Construction would impact 12.2 acres of park land and conservation areas and require relocation of 13 residences and one business. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110234, 298 pages and maps, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-11-01-F KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698108?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+41+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MEMORIAL+DRIVE+TO+COUNTY+M%2C+BROWN+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=US+41+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MEMORIAL+DRIVE+TO+COUNTY+M%2C+BROWN+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 16 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888698042; 14987-7_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888698042?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 14 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888696614; 14987-7_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696614?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 13 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888696607; 14987-7_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696607?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 12 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888696603; 14987-7_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696603?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 11 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888696595; 14987-7_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696595?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 10 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888696591; 14987-7_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696591?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 55 INTERCHANGE AT E.H. CRUMP BOULEVARD AND SOUTH RIVERSIDE BOULEVARD IN MEMPHIS, SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - INTERSTATE 55 INTERCHANGE AT E.H. CRUMP BOULEVARD AND SOUTH RIVERSIDE BOULEVARD IN MEMPHIS, SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 888696300; 14985-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Interstate 55 (I-55) interchange at E.H. Crump Boulevard (State Route 15/US 64) and South Riverside Boulevard on the western edge of Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee is proposed. I-55 is a major north-south corridor and is utilized by high volumes of local commuters and through traffic, including commercial truck traffic. The outdated cloverleaf design of the I-55 interchange poses multiple safety and efficiency problems. The project area consists of a 500-foot corridor along the existing I-55 alignment extending 1.5 miles from the Mississippi River Bridge River Bridge in Memphis to near McLemore Avenue. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Alternatives A and B would modify the interchange to improve traffic movements along and between the I-55 and McLemore interchange and the Mississippi River Bridge. Under Alternative B, southbound I-55 motorists would be provided continuous access to E.H. Crump Boulevard via an outside auxiliary road that would cross under the four-lane mainline structure. Both alternatives would include flyover bridges for the main lanes of I-55 configured with a design speed of 50 miles per hour. Two additional alternatives were developed in order to have a facility that does not force through traffic to enter the French Fort Neighborhood, provides secondary access in and out of the French Fort Neighborhood area, and removes the clover leaf ramps associated with the existing interchange. Alternative Z would add a roundabout in the area that currently contains the cloverleaf ramps. A secondary connector road that attaches the roundabout to the eastern end of Illinois Avenue in the French Fort Neighborhood would provide improved access for residents and local business traffic. Alternative Z-1, which is the preferred alternative, would shift the I-55 through traffic lanes slightly eastward near the adjacent Hershey Foods, Inc. facilities to fully avoid the residences and businesses in the French Fort Neighborhood area. Alternative Z-1 would provide the same general roundabout layout as Alternative Z, with slight variation in the layout of the ramps and connector roads to accommodate the shifting of the I-55 through lanes. Total estimated project costs for Alternative Z-1 are estimated at $33.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would resolve safety and capacity issues at the I-55/Crump Boulevard interchange. These improvements would provide: long-term beneficial impacts to I-55 traffic flows and route continuity; improved connections between I-55 and local roadways; and improved access between the French Fort Neighborhood area and areas east of I-55 including downtown Memphis. Noise impacts would be reduced when compared to the existing conditions due to the shifting of I-55 slightly eastward and away from residences. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way for the preferred alternative would require the acquisition of a small portion of a parking lot owned by Hershey Foods, Inc. A mitigation plan would replace all parking spaces lost through restriping the remaining parking lot and possible use of adjacent vacant property. Direct access to Metal Museum Drive would be eliminated, but the new access to Alston Avenue would provide needed connections to the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0199D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110225, 168 pages and maps, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696300?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+55+INTERCHANGE+AT+E.H.+CRUMP+BOULEVARD+AND+SOUTH+RIVERSIDE+BOULEVARD+IN+MEMPHIS%2C+SHELBY+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+55+INTERCHANGE+AT+E.H.+CRUMP+BOULEVARD+AND+SOUTH+RIVERSIDE+BOULEVARD+IN+MEMPHIS%2C+SHELBY+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 4 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888696278; 14987-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696278?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 3 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888696256; 14987-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696256?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 2 of 16] T2 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 888696250; 14987-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888696250?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 55 INTERCHANGE AT E.H. CRUMP BOULEVARD AND SOUTH RIVERSIDE BOULEVARD IN MEMPHIS, SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 884408342; 14985 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Interstate 55 (I-55) interchange at E.H. Crump Boulevard (State Route 15/US 64) and South Riverside Boulevard on the western edge of Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee is proposed. I-55 is a major north-south corridor and is utilized by high volumes of local commuters and through traffic, including commercial truck traffic. The outdated cloverleaf design of the I-55 interchange poses multiple safety and efficiency problems. The project area consists of a 500-foot corridor along the existing I-55 alignment extending 1.5 miles from the Mississippi River Bridge River Bridge in Memphis to near McLemore Avenue. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Alternatives A and B would modify the interchange to improve traffic movements along and between the I-55 and McLemore interchange and the Mississippi River Bridge. Under Alternative B, southbound I-55 motorists would be provided continuous access to E.H. Crump Boulevard via an outside auxiliary road that would cross under the four-lane mainline structure. Both alternatives would include flyover bridges for the main lanes of I-55 configured with a design speed of 50 miles per hour. Two additional alternatives were developed in order to have a facility that does not force through traffic to enter the French Fort Neighborhood, provides secondary access in and out of the French Fort Neighborhood area, and removes the clover leaf ramps associated with the existing interchange. Alternative Z would add a roundabout in the area that currently contains the cloverleaf ramps. A secondary connector road that attaches the roundabout to the eastern end of Illinois Avenue in the French Fort Neighborhood would provide improved access for residents and local business traffic. Alternative Z-1, which is the preferred alternative, would shift the I-55 through traffic lanes slightly eastward near the adjacent Hershey Foods, Inc. facilities to fully avoid the residences and businesses in the French Fort Neighborhood area. Alternative Z-1 would provide the same general roundabout layout as Alternative Z, with slight variation in the layout of the ramps and connector roads to accommodate the shifting of the I-55 through lanes. Total estimated project costs for Alternative Z-1 are estimated at $33.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would resolve safety and capacity issues at the I-55/Crump Boulevard interchange. These improvements would provide: long-term beneficial impacts to I-55 traffic flows and route continuity; improved connections between I-55 and local roadways; and improved access between the French Fort Neighborhood area and areas east of I-55 including downtown Memphis. Noise impacts would be reduced when compared to the existing conditions due to the shifting of I-55 slightly eastward and away from residences. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way for the preferred alternative would require the acquisition of a small portion of a parking lot owned by Hershey Foods, Inc. A mitigation plan would replace all parking spaces lost through restriping the remaining parking lot and possible use of adjacent vacant property. Direct access to Metal Museum Drive would be eliminated, but the new access to Alston Avenue would provide needed connections to the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0199D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110225, 168 pages and maps, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884408342?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+55+INTERCHANGE+AT+E.H.+CRUMP+BOULEVARD+AND+SOUTH+RIVERSIDE+BOULEVARD+IN+MEMPHIS%2C+SHELBY+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+55+INTERCHANGE+AT+E.H.+CRUMP+BOULEVARD+AND+SOUTH+RIVERSIDE+BOULEVARD+IN+MEMPHIS%2C+SHELBY+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 41 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, MEMORIAL DRIVE TO COUNTY M, BROWN COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 16386438; 14994 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of a 3.3-mile segment of US Highway 41 from Memorial Drive to County Road M in Brown County, Wisconsin is proposed. Within the project area, US 41 and Interstate 43 (I-43) serve the City of Green Bay, Village of Howard, Village of Suamico, and surrounding communities. US 41 and I-43 also provide a vital north-south transportation link between the Chicago-Milwaukee metropolitan area, the Fox River Valley industrial area, and recreational areas in northeastern Wisconsin and upper Michigan. US 41 is a multi-lane backbone highway and a National Highway System route that is also being planned for future conversion to an interstate highway between Milwaukee and I-43 in Green Bay. The existing US 41 freeway and its interchanges were constructed over 35 years ago and do not meet current design standards. Proposed improvements include reconstructing the interchanges at US 141/Velp Avenue, I-43, and County Road M, adding an additional lane in each direction on the US 41 mainline, adding auxiliary lanes along US 41 in both directions, constructing new bridges along US 41 over US 141/Velp Avenue, CN Railroad, Wietor Drive, I-43, and Duck Creek, and replacing the County EB/Lakeview Drive structure and the County Road M structure over US 41. In addition, roundabouts would be constructed at the US 141/Velp Avenue interchange ramp terminals, the US 141/Velp Avenue/Memorial Drive intersection east of US 41, the County Road M interchange ramp terminals, and the frontage road intersections with County Road M. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative E is the preferred alternative and would involve expanding US 41 with a full reconfiguration of the I-43/US 41 interchange. The US 41 expansion would include a revised northbound alignment, and a raised northbound gradeline to accommodate the southbound US 41 to southbound I-43 ramp within the existing interchange footprint and the northbound I-43 to southbound US 41 flyover ramp piers and foundations. All loop ramps would be eliminated and the I-43/US 41 system interchange would be reconstructed with directional ramps. The existing access between US 141/Velp Avenue and I-43 via US 41 would be eliminated and Atkinson Avenue or an alternate route would be used to access southbound I-43 from US 141/Velp Avenue or to access US 141/Velp Avenue from northbound I-43. The construction cost of Alternative E is estimated at $230 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstructed highway and interchanges would address geometric and operational deficiencies, improve traffic flow and safety, and help meet traffic demand and mobility needs including future conversion of US 41 to an interstate highway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way for Alternative E would result in conversion of 37 acres of land, two stream crossings, one stream realignment, and impacts to 54 acres of wetlands. Habitat for Blanding's turtle, wood turtle, common tern, black-crowned night heron, and cattle egret could be affected. Construction would impact 12.2 acres of park land and conservation areas and require relocation of 13 residences and one business. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110234, 298 pages and maps, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-11-01-F KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16386438?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+41+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MEMORIAL+DRIVE+TO+COUNTY+M%2C+BROWN+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=US+41+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MEMORIAL+DRIVE+TO+COUNTY+M%2C+BROWN+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 16373845; 14987 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of nine federally listed species and one proposed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of seven endangered species: Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish; two threatened species: bog turtle and Madison cave isopod; and one species proposed as endangered: sheepnose mussel. The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes about 15,500 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering about nine million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be within previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing, noise-related impacts from construction, habitat degradation from construction, or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110227, Draft EIS--364 pages, Appendices--827 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--508 pages, July 22, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16373845?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Accounting for the Nodal Tide to Improve Estimates of Sea Level Acceleration AN - 899155361; 15627718 AB - The 18.6-year nodal tide is a component of all tide gauge records. It can affect estimates of sea level acceleration, in particular for tide gauge records with lengths of less than 60 years. We provide an analytic solution that shows the effect of the nodal tide on estimates of sea level trend and acceleration. By adding a term to the least squares formulation used to estimate sea level trend and acceleration, we can account for the nodal tide and eliminate its effect on the estimate. Using representative world-wide tide gauge records, we demonstrate that accounting for the nodal tide can improve estimates, particularly of acceleration. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Houston, J R AU - Dean, R G AD - Engineer Research and Development Center, Corps of Engineers, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, U.S.A. Y1 - 2011/07/21/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Jul 21 SP - 801 EP - 807 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation VL - 27 IS - 5 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Global climate change KW - sea level rise KW - nodal tide KW - Sea Level KW - Marine KW - Sea level trends KW - Sea level KW - Nodal tides KW - Tide gauges KW - Coastal research KW - Accounting KW - Acceleration KW - Tides KW - O 2010:Physical Oceanography KW - SW 0540:Properties of water KW - Q2 09167:Tides, surges and sea level KW - M2 551.466:Ocean Waves and Tides (551.466) UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/899155361?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Awaterresources&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.atitle=Accounting+for+the+Nodal+Tide+to+Improve+Estimates+of+Sea+Level+Acceleration&rft.au=Houston%2C+J+R%3BDean%2C+R+G&rft.aulast=Houston&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2011-07-21&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=801&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/10.2112%2FJCOASTRES-D-11-00045.1 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - Number of references - 9 N1 - Last updated - 2016-04-29 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Sea level; Tide gauges; Nodal tides; Acceleration; Sea level trends; Coastal research; Sea Level; Accounting; Tides; Marine DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11-00045.1 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 23 of 25] T2 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 884843695; 14979-9_0023 AB - PURPOSE: An 18-mile extension of light rail transit (LRT) in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington is proposed. The East Link LRT Project would connect to Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authoritys Central Link at the International District/Chinatown Station, and then travel east across Lake Washington via Interstate 90 (I90) to Mercer Island, Downtown Bellevue, and Bel-Red/Overlake, terminating in Downtown Redmond. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries and this final EIS considers 24 build alternatives, a No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives. A total of 19 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue via I-90. The preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M) for Segment B would leave the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continue north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE to approximately SE 6th Street. Two preferred alternatives for Segment C, the 108th NE At-Grade Alternative (C11A) and the110th NE Tunnel Alternative (C9T), would travel through downtown Bellevue between approximately SE 6th and NE 12th Streets on either an at-grade or tunnel profile. Segment D, Bel-Red/Overlake, would travel from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center through the Bel-Red corridor. Two design options are associated with the preferred NE 16th At-Grade Alternative (D2A): the 120th Station Design Option, which involves changes in vertical profile at the 120th Station; and the NE 24th Design Option, which involves a route change along NE 24th Street and 152nd Avenue NE and a different location for the Overlake Village Station. Segment E, Downtown Redmond, would travel from Overlake Transit Center via the State Route 520 corridor until West Lake Sammamish Parkway and then proceed by way of Marymoor Park through Downtown Redmond via the former BNSF Railway corridor to the termination point at the Downtown Redmond Station. Total costs for the preferred alternatives for all segments are estimated in 2007 dollars at $2.9 to $3.4 billion if preferred alternative C11A is selected, or $3.1 to $3.7 billion if preferred alternative C9T is selected. Construction is expected to start in 2015, with operation under way between 2022 and 2023. Segment E to Downtown Redmond would be constructed after 2023. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would expand capacity and improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project-wide preferred alternatives would: adversely affect levels of service at 11 to 13 traffic intersections; displace 49 residences and 59 to 81 businesses; impact 0.7 acres of wetlands and 2.6 to 3.0 acres of wildlife habitat; create noise impacts to 367 to 445 receptors; permanently impact 5.8 to 6.0 acres of parks; and affect one or two historic properties. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1 and 10-0509D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110219, Executive Summary--78 pages, Final EIS--640 pages on DVD, Appendices--DVD, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884843695?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 22 of 25] T2 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 884843684; 14979-9_0022 AB - PURPOSE: An 18-mile extension of light rail transit (LRT) in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington is proposed. The East Link LRT Project would connect to Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authoritys Central Link at the International District/Chinatown Station, and then travel east across Lake Washington via Interstate 90 (I90) to Mercer Island, Downtown Bellevue, and Bel-Red/Overlake, terminating in Downtown Redmond. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries and this final EIS considers 24 build alternatives, a No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives. A total of 19 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue via I-90. The preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M) for Segment B would leave the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continue north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE to approximately SE 6th Street. Two preferred alternatives for Segment C, the 108th NE At-Grade Alternative (C11A) and the110th NE Tunnel Alternative (C9T), would travel through downtown Bellevue between approximately SE 6th and NE 12th Streets on either an at-grade or tunnel profile. Segment D, Bel-Red/Overlake, would travel from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center through the Bel-Red corridor. Two design options are associated with the preferred NE 16th At-Grade Alternative (D2A): the 120th Station Design Option, which involves changes in vertical profile at the 120th Station; and the NE 24th Design Option, which involves a route change along NE 24th Street and 152nd Avenue NE and a different location for the Overlake Village Station. Segment E, Downtown Redmond, would travel from Overlake Transit Center via the State Route 520 corridor until West Lake Sammamish Parkway and then proceed by way of Marymoor Park through Downtown Redmond via the former BNSF Railway corridor to the termination point at the Downtown Redmond Station. Total costs for the preferred alternatives for all segments are estimated in 2007 dollars at $2.9 to $3.4 billion if preferred alternative C11A is selected, or $3.1 to $3.7 billion if preferred alternative C9T is selected. Construction is expected to start in 2015, with operation under way between 2022 and 2023. Segment E to Downtown Redmond would be constructed after 2023. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would expand capacity and improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project-wide preferred alternatives would: adversely affect levels of service at 11 to 13 traffic intersections; displace 49 residences and 59 to 81 businesses; impact 0.7 acres of wetlands and 2.6 to 3.0 acres of wildlife habitat; create noise impacts to 367 to 445 receptors; permanently impact 5.8 to 6.0 acres of parks; and affect one or two historic properties. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1 and 10-0509D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110219, Executive Summary--78 pages, Final EIS--640 pages on DVD, Appendices--DVD, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884843684?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 4 of 25] T2 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 884843673; 14979-9_0004 AB - PURPOSE: An 18-mile extension of light rail transit (LRT) in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington is proposed. The East Link LRT Project would connect to Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authoritys Central Link at the International District/Chinatown Station, and then travel east across Lake Washington via Interstate 90 (I90) to Mercer Island, Downtown Bellevue, and Bel-Red/Overlake, terminating in Downtown Redmond. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries and this final EIS considers 24 build alternatives, a No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives. A total of 19 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue via I-90. The preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M) for Segment B would leave the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continue north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE to approximately SE 6th Street. Two preferred alternatives for Segment C, the 108th NE At-Grade Alternative (C11A) and the110th NE Tunnel Alternative (C9T), would travel through downtown Bellevue between approximately SE 6th and NE 12th Streets on either an at-grade or tunnel profile. Segment D, Bel-Red/Overlake, would travel from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center through the Bel-Red corridor. Two design options are associated with the preferred NE 16th At-Grade Alternative (D2A): the 120th Station Design Option, which involves changes in vertical profile at the 120th Station; and the NE 24th Design Option, which involves a route change along NE 24th Street and 152nd Avenue NE and a different location for the Overlake Village Station. Segment E, Downtown Redmond, would travel from Overlake Transit Center via the State Route 520 corridor until West Lake Sammamish Parkway and then proceed by way of Marymoor Park through Downtown Redmond via the former BNSF Railway corridor to the termination point at the Downtown Redmond Station. Total costs for the preferred alternatives for all segments are estimated in 2007 dollars at $2.9 to $3.4 billion if preferred alternative C11A is selected, or $3.1 to $3.7 billion if preferred alternative C9T is selected. Construction is expected to start in 2015, with operation under way between 2022 and 2023. Segment E to Downtown Redmond would be constructed after 2023. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would expand capacity and improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project-wide preferred alternatives would: adversely affect levels of service at 11 to 13 traffic intersections; displace 49 residences and 59 to 81 businesses; impact 0.7 acres of wetlands and 2.6 to 3.0 acres of wildlife habitat; create noise impacts to 367 to 445 receptors; permanently impact 5.8 to 6.0 acres of parks; and affect one or two historic properties. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1 and 10-0509D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110219, Executive Summary--78 pages, Final EIS--640 pages on DVD, Appendices--DVD, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884843673?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 3 of 25] T2 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 884843666; 14979-9_0003 AB - PURPOSE: An 18-mile extension of light rail transit (LRT) in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington is proposed. The East Link LRT Project would connect to Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authoritys Central Link at the International District/Chinatown Station, and then travel east across Lake Washington via Interstate 90 (I90) to Mercer Island, Downtown Bellevue, and Bel-Red/Overlake, terminating in Downtown Redmond. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries and this final EIS considers 24 build alternatives, a No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives. A total of 19 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue via I-90. The preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M) for Segment B would leave the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continue north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE to approximately SE 6th Street. Two preferred alternatives for Segment C, the 108th NE At-Grade Alternative (C11A) and the110th NE Tunnel Alternative (C9T), would travel through downtown Bellevue between approximately SE 6th and NE 12th Streets on either an at-grade or tunnel profile. Segment D, Bel-Red/Overlake, would travel from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center through the Bel-Red corridor. Two design options are associated with the preferred NE 16th At-Grade Alternative (D2A): the 120th Station Design Option, which involves changes in vertical profile at the 120th Station; and the NE 24th Design Option, which involves a route change along NE 24th Street and 152nd Avenue NE and a different location for the Overlake Village Station. Segment E, Downtown Redmond, would travel from Overlake Transit Center via the State Route 520 corridor until West Lake Sammamish Parkway and then proceed by way of Marymoor Park through Downtown Redmond via the former BNSF Railway corridor to the termination point at the Downtown Redmond Station. Total costs for the preferred alternatives for all segments are estimated in 2007 dollars at $2.9 to $3.4 billion if preferred alternative C11A is selected, or $3.1 to $3.7 billion if preferred alternative C9T is selected. Construction is expected to start in 2015, with operation under way between 2022 and 2023. Segment E to Downtown Redmond would be constructed after 2023. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would expand capacity and improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project-wide preferred alternatives would: adversely affect levels of service at 11 to 13 traffic intersections; displace 49 residences and 59 to 81 businesses; impact 0.7 acres of wetlands and 2.6 to 3.0 acres of wildlife habitat; create noise impacts to 367 to 445 receptors; permanently impact 5.8 to 6.0 acres of parks; and affect one or two historic properties. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1 and 10-0509D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110219, Executive Summary--78 pages, Final EIS--640 pages on DVD, Appendices--DVD, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884843666?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 25] T2 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 884843654; 14979-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: An 18-mile extension of light rail transit (LRT) in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington is proposed. The East Link LRT Project would connect to Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authoritys Central Link at the International District/Chinatown Station, and then travel east across Lake Washington via Interstate 90 (I90) to Mercer Island, Downtown Bellevue, and Bel-Red/Overlake, terminating in Downtown Redmond. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries and this final EIS considers 24 build alternatives, a No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives. A total of 19 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue via I-90. The preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M) for Segment B would leave the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continue north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE to approximately SE 6th Street. Two preferred alternatives for Segment C, the 108th NE At-Grade Alternative (C11A) and the110th NE Tunnel Alternative (C9T), would travel through downtown Bellevue between approximately SE 6th and NE 12th Streets on either an at-grade or tunnel profile. Segment D, Bel-Red/Overlake, would travel from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center through the Bel-Red corridor. Two design options are associated with the preferred NE 16th At-Grade Alternative (D2A): the 120th Station Design Option, which involves changes in vertical profile at the 120th Station; and the NE 24th Design Option, which involves a route change along NE 24th Street and 152nd Avenue NE and a different location for the Overlake Village Station. Segment E, Downtown Redmond, would travel from Overlake Transit Center via the State Route 520 corridor until West Lake Sammamish Parkway and then proceed by way of Marymoor Park through Downtown Redmond via the former BNSF Railway corridor to the termination point at the Downtown Redmond Station. Total costs for the preferred alternatives for all segments are estimated in 2007 dollars at $2.9 to $3.4 billion if preferred alternative C11A is selected, or $3.1 to $3.7 billion if preferred alternative C9T is selected. Construction is expected to start in 2015, with operation under way between 2022 and 2023. Segment E to Downtown Redmond would be constructed after 2023. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would expand capacity and improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project-wide preferred alternatives would: adversely affect levels of service at 11 to 13 traffic intersections; displace 49 residences and 59 to 81 businesses; impact 0.7 acres of wetlands and 2.6 to 3.0 acres of wildlife habitat; create noise impacts to 367 to 445 receptors; permanently impact 5.8 to 6.0 acres of parks; and affect one or two historic properties. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1 and 10-0509D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110219, Executive Summary--78 pages, Final EIS--640 pages on DVD, Appendices--DVD, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884843654?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 15 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884843647; 14983-3_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884843647?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 14 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884843641; 14983-3_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884843641?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 25 of 25] T2 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 884843598; 14979-9_0025 AB - PURPOSE: An 18-mile extension of light rail transit (LRT) in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington is proposed. The East Link LRT Project would connect to Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authoritys Central Link at the International District/Chinatown Station, and then travel east across Lake Washington via Interstate 90 (I90) to Mercer Island, Downtown Bellevue, and Bel-Red/Overlake, terminating in Downtown Redmond. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries and this final EIS considers 24 build alternatives, a No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives. A total of 19 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue via I-90. The preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M) for Segment B would leave the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continue north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE to approximately SE 6th Street. Two preferred alternatives for Segment C, the 108th NE At-Grade Alternative (C11A) and the110th NE Tunnel Alternative (C9T), would travel through downtown Bellevue between approximately SE 6th and NE 12th Streets on either an at-grade or tunnel profile. Segment D, Bel-Red/Overlake, would travel from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center through the Bel-Red corridor. Two design options are associated with the preferred NE 16th At-Grade Alternative (D2A): the 120th Station Design Option, which involves changes in vertical profile at the 120th Station; and the NE 24th Design Option, which involves a route change along NE 24th Street and 152nd Avenue NE and a different location for the Overlake Village Station. Segment E, Downtown Redmond, would travel from Overlake Transit Center via the State Route 520 corridor until West Lake Sammamish Parkway and then proceed by way of Marymoor Park through Downtown Redmond via the former BNSF Railway corridor to the termination point at the Downtown Redmond Station. Total costs for the preferred alternatives for all segments are estimated in 2007 dollars at $2.9 to $3.4 billion if preferred alternative C11A is selected, or $3.1 to $3.7 billion if preferred alternative C9T is selected. Construction is expected to start in 2015, with operation under way between 2022 and 2023. Segment E to Downtown Redmond would be constructed after 2023. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would expand capacity and improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project-wide preferred alternatives would: adversely affect levels of service at 11 to 13 traffic intersections; displace 49 residences and 59 to 81 businesses; impact 0.7 acres of wetlands and 2.6 to 3.0 acres of wildlife habitat; create noise impacts to 367 to 445 receptors; permanently impact 5.8 to 6.0 acres of parks; and affect one or two historic properties. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1 and 10-0509D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110219, Executive Summary--78 pages, Final EIS--640 pages on DVD, Appendices--DVD, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884843598?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 20 of 25] T2 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 884843588; 14979-9_0020 AB - PURPOSE: An 18-mile extension of light rail transit (LRT) in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington is proposed. The East Link LRT Project would connect to Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authoritys Central Link at the International District/Chinatown Station, and then travel east across Lake Washington via Interstate 90 (I90) to Mercer Island, Downtown Bellevue, and Bel-Red/Overlake, terminating in Downtown Redmond. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries and this final EIS considers 24 build alternatives, a No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives. A total of 19 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue via I-90. The preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M) for Segment B would leave the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continue north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE to approximately SE 6th Street. Two preferred alternatives for Segment C, the 108th NE At-Grade Alternative (C11A) and the110th NE Tunnel Alternative (C9T), would travel through downtown Bellevue between approximately SE 6th and NE 12th Streets on either an at-grade or tunnel profile. Segment D, Bel-Red/Overlake, would travel from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center through the Bel-Red corridor. Two design options are associated with the preferred NE 16th At-Grade Alternative (D2A): the 120th Station Design Option, which involves changes in vertical profile at the 120th Station; and the NE 24th Design Option, which involves a route change along NE 24th Street and 152nd Avenue NE and a different location for the Overlake Village Station. Segment E, Downtown Redmond, would travel from Overlake Transit Center via the State Route 520 corridor until West Lake Sammamish Parkway and then proceed by way of Marymoor Park through Downtown Redmond via the former BNSF Railway corridor to the termination point at the Downtown Redmond Station. Total costs for the preferred alternatives for all segments are estimated in 2007 dollars at $2.9 to $3.4 billion if preferred alternative C11A is selected, or $3.1 to $3.7 billion if preferred alternative C9T is selected. Construction is expected to start in 2015, with operation under way between 2022 and 2023. Segment E to Downtown Redmond would be constructed after 2023. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would expand capacity and improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project-wide preferred alternatives would: adversely affect levels of service at 11 to 13 traffic intersections; displace 49 residences and 59 to 81 businesses; impact 0.7 acres of wetlands and 2.6 to 3.0 acres of wildlife habitat; create noise impacts to 367 to 445 receptors; permanently impact 5.8 to 6.0 acres of parks; and affect one or two historic properties. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1 and 10-0509D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110219, Executive Summary--78 pages, Final EIS--640 pages on DVD, Appendices--DVD, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884843588?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 18 of 25] T2 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 884843576; 14979-9_0018 AB - PURPOSE: An 18-mile extension of light rail transit (LRT) in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington is proposed. The East Link LRT Project would connect to Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authoritys Central Link at the International District/Chinatown Station, and then travel east across Lake Washington via Interstate 90 (I90) to Mercer Island, Downtown Bellevue, and Bel-Red/Overlake, terminating in Downtown Redmond. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries and this final EIS considers 24 build alternatives, a No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives. A total of 19 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue via I-90. The preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M) for Segment B would leave the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continue north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE to approximately SE 6th Street. Two preferred alternatives for Segment C, the 108th NE At-Grade Alternative (C11A) and the110th NE Tunnel Alternative (C9T), would travel through downtown Bellevue between approximately SE 6th and NE 12th Streets on either an at-grade or tunnel profile. Segment D, Bel-Red/Overlake, would travel from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center through the Bel-Red corridor. Two design options are associated with the preferred NE 16th At-Grade Alternative (D2A): the 120th Station Design Option, which involves changes in vertical profile at the 120th Station; and the NE 24th Design Option, which involves a route change along NE 24th Street and 152nd Avenue NE and a different location for the Overlake Village Station. Segment E, Downtown Redmond, would travel from Overlake Transit Center via the State Route 520 corridor until West Lake Sammamish Parkway and then proceed by way of Marymoor Park through Downtown Redmond via the former BNSF Railway corridor to the termination point at the Downtown Redmond Station. Total costs for the preferred alternatives for all segments are estimated in 2007 dollars at $2.9 to $3.4 billion if preferred alternative C11A is selected, or $3.1 to $3.7 billion if preferred alternative C9T is selected. Construction is expected to start in 2015, with operation under way between 2022 and 2023. Segment E to Downtown Redmond would be constructed after 2023. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would expand capacity and improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project-wide preferred alternatives would: adversely affect levels of service at 11 to 13 traffic intersections; displace 49 residences and 59 to 81 businesses; impact 0.7 acres of wetlands and 2.6 to 3.0 acres of wildlife habitat; create noise impacts to 367 to 445 receptors; permanently impact 5.8 to 6.0 acres of parks; and affect one or two historic properties. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1 and 10-0509D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110219, Executive Summary--78 pages, Final EIS--640 pages on DVD, Appendices--DVD, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884843576?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 17 of 25] T2 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 884843566; 14979-9_0017 AB - PURPOSE: An 18-mile extension of light rail transit (LRT) in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington is proposed. The East Link LRT Project would connect to Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authoritys Central Link at the International District/Chinatown Station, and then travel east across Lake Washington via Interstate 90 (I90) to Mercer Island, Downtown Bellevue, and Bel-Red/Overlake, terminating in Downtown Redmond. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries and this final EIS considers 24 build alternatives, a No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives. A total of 19 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue via I-90. The preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M) for Segment B would leave the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continue north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE to approximately SE 6th Street. Two preferred alternatives for Segment C, the 108th NE At-Grade Alternative (C11A) and the110th NE Tunnel Alternative (C9T), would travel through downtown Bellevue between approximately SE 6th and NE 12th Streets on either an at-grade or tunnel profile. Segment D, Bel-Red/Overlake, would travel from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center through the Bel-Red corridor. Two design options are associated with the preferred NE 16th At-Grade Alternative (D2A): the 120th Station Design Option, which involves changes in vertical profile at the 120th Station; and the NE 24th Design Option, which involves a route change along NE 24th Street and 152nd Avenue NE and a different location for the Overlake Village Station. Segment E, Downtown Redmond, would travel from Overlake Transit Center via the State Route 520 corridor until West Lake Sammamish Parkway and then proceed by way of Marymoor Park through Downtown Redmond via the former BNSF Railway corridor to the termination point at the Downtown Redmond Station. Total costs for the preferred alternatives for all segments are estimated in 2007 dollars at $2.9 to $3.4 billion if preferred alternative C11A is selected, or $3.1 to $3.7 billion if preferred alternative C9T is selected. Construction is expected to start in 2015, with operation under way between 2022 and 2023. Segment E to Downtown Redmond would be constructed after 2023. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would expand capacity and improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project-wide preferred alternatives would: adversely affect levels of service at 11 to 13 traffic intersections; displace 49 residences and 59 to 81 businesses; impact 0.7 acres of wetlands and 2.6 to 3.0 acres of wildlife habitat; create noise impacts to 367 to 445 receptors; permanently impact 5.8 to 6.0 acres of parks; and affect one or two historic properties. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1 and 10-0509D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110219, Executive Summary--78 pages, Final EIS--640 pages on DVD, Appendices--DVD, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884843566?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 16 of 25] T2 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 884843559; 14979-9_0016 AB - PURPOSE: An 18-mile extension of light rail transit (LRT) in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington is proposed. The East Link LRT Project would connect to Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authoritys Central Link at the International District/Chinatown Station, and then travel east across Lake Washington via Interstate 90 (I90) to Mercer Island, Downtown Bellevue, and Bel-Red/Overlake, terminating in Downtown Redmond. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries and this final EIS considers 24 build alternatives, a No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives. A total of 19 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue via I-90. The preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M) for Segment B would leave the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continue north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE to approximately SE 6th Street. Two preferred alternatives for Segment C, the 108th NE At-Grade Alternative (C11A) and the110th NE Tunnel Alternative (C9T), would travel through downtown Bellevue between approximately SE 6th and NE 12th Streets on either an at-grade or tunnel profile. Segment D, Bel-Red/Overlake, would travel from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center through the Bel-Red corridor. Two design options are associated with the preferred NE 16th At-Grade Alternative (D2A): the 120th Station Design Option, which involves changes in vertical profile at the 120th Station; and the NE 24th Design Option, which involves a route change along NE 24th Street and 152nd Avenue NE and a different location for the Overlake Village Station. Segment E, Downtown Redmond, would travel from Overlake Transit Center via the State Route 520 corridor until West Lake Sammamish Parkway and then proceed by way of Marymoor Park through Downtown Redmond via the former BNSF Railway corridor to the termination point at the Downtown Redmond Station. Total costs for the preferred alternatives for all segments are estimated in 2007 dollars at $2.9 to $3.4 billion if preferred alternative C11A is selected, or $3.1 to $3.7 billion if preferred alternative C9T is selected. Construction is expected to start in 2015, with operation under way between 2022 and 2023. Segment E to Downtown Redmond would be constructed after 2023. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would expand capacity and improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project-wide preferred alternatives would: adversely affect levels of service at 11 to 13 traffic intersections; displace 49 residences and 59 to 81 businesses; impact 0.7 acres of wetlands and 2.6 to 3.0 acres of wildlife habitat; create noise impacts to 367 to 445 receptors; permanently impact 5.8 to 6.0 acres of parks; and affect one or two historic properties. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1 and 10-0509D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110219, Executive Summary--78 pages, Final EIS--640 pages on DVD, Appendices--DVD, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884843559?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 11 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884843552; 14983-3_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884843552?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 10 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884843542; 14983-3_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884843542?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 38 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842788; 14983-3_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842788?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 15 of 25] T2 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842774; 14979-9_0015 AB - PURPOSE: An 18-mile extension of light rail transit (LRT) in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington is proposed. The East Link LRT Project would connect to Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authoritys Central Link at the International District/Chinatown Station, and then travel east across Lake Washington via Interstate 90 (I90) to Mercer Island, Downtown Bellevue, and Bel-Red/Overlake, terminating in Downtown Redmond. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries and this final EIS considers 24 build alternatives, a No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives. A total of 19 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue via I-90. The preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M) for Segment B would leave the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continue north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE to approximately SE 6th Street. Two preferred alternatives for Segment C, the 108th NE At-Grade Alternative (C11A) and the110th NE Tunnel Alternative (C9T), would travel through downtown Bellevue between approximately SE 6th and NE 12th Streets on either an at-grade or tunnel profile. Segment D, Bel-Red/Overlake, would travel from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center through the Bel-Red corridor. Two design options are associated with the preferred NE 16th At-Grade Alternative (D2A): the 120th Station Design Option, which involves changes in vertical profile at the 120th Station; and the NE 24th Design Option, which involves a route change along NE 24th Street and 152nd Avenue NE and a different location for the Overlake Village Station. Segment E, Downtown Redmond, would travel from Overlake Transit Center via the State Route 520 corridor until West Lake Sammamish Parkway and then proceed by way of Marymoor Park through Downtown Redmond via the former BNSF Railway corridor to the termination point at the Downtown Redmond Station. Total costs for the preferred alternatives for all segments are estimated in 2007 dollars at $2.9 to $3.4 billion if preferred alternative C11A is selected, or $3.1 to $3.7 billion if preferred alternative C9T is selected. Construction is expected to start in 2015, with operation under way between 2022 and 2023. Segment E to Downtown Redmond would be constructed after 2023. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would expand capacity and improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project-wide preferred alternatives would: adversely affect levels of service at 11 to 13 traffic intersections; displace 49 residences and 59 to 81 businesses; impact 0.7 acres of wetlands and 2.6 to 3.0 acres of wildlife habitat; create noise impacts to 367 to 445 receptors; permanently impact 5.8 to 6.0 acres of parks; and affect one or two historic properties. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1 and 10-0509D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110219, Executive Summary--78 pages, Final EIS--640 pages on DVD, Appendices--DVD, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842774?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 37 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842741; 14983-3_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842741?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 13 of 25] T2 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842725; 14979-9_0013 AB - PURPOSE: An 18-mile extension of light rail transit (LRT) in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington is proposed. The East Link LRT Project would connect to Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authoritys Central Link at the International District/Chinatown Station, and then travel east across Lake Washington via Interstate 90 (I90) to Mercer Island, Downtown Bellevue, and Bel-Red/Overlake, terminating in Downtown Redmond. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries and this final EIS considers 24 build alternatives, a No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives. A total of 19 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue via I-90. The preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M) for Segment B would leave the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continue north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE to approximately SE 6th Street. Two preferred alternatives for Segment C, the 108th NE At-Grade Alternative (C11A) and the110th NE Tunnel Alternative (C9T), would travel through downtown Bellevue between approximately SE 6th and NE 12th Streets on either an at-grade or tunnel profile. Segment D, Bel-Red/Overlake, would travel from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center through the Bel-Red corridor. Two design options are associated with the preferred NE 16th At-Grade Alternative (D2A): the 120th Station Design Option, which involves changes in vertical profile at the 120th Station; and the NE 24th Design Option, which involves a route change along NE 24th Street and 152nd Avenue NE and a different location for the Overlake Village Station. Segment E, Downtown Redmond, would travel from Overlake Transit Center via the State Route 520 corridor until West Lake Sammamish Parkway and then proceed by way of Marymoor Park through Downtown Redmond via the former BNSF Railway corridor to the termination point at the Downtown Redmond Station. Total costs for the preferred alternatives for all segments are estimated in 2007 dollars at $2.9 to $3.4 billion if preferred alternative C11A is selected, or $3.1 to $3.7 billion if preferred alternative C9T is selected. Construction is expected to start in 2015, with operation under way between 2022 and 2023. Segment E to Downtown Redmond would be constructed after 2023. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would expand capacity and improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project-wide preferred alternatives would: adversely affect levels of service at 11 to 13 traffic intersections; displace 49 residences and 59 to 81 businesses; impact 0.7 acres of wetlands and 2.6 to 3.0 acres of wildlife habitat; create noise impacts to 367 to 445 receptors; permanently impact 5.8 to 6.0 acres of parks; and affect one or two historic properties. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1 and 10-0509D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110219, Executive Summary--78 pages, Final EIS--640 pages on DVD, Appendices--DVD, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842725?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 36 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842712; 14983-3_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842712?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 12 of 25] T2 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842700; 14979-9_0012 AB - PURPOSE: An 18-mile extension of light rail transit (LRT) in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington is proposed. The East Link LRT Project would connect to Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authoritys Central Link at the International District/Chinatown Station, and then travel east across Lake Washington via Interstate 90 (I90) to Mercer Island, Downtown Bellevue, and Bel-Red/Overlake, terminating in Downtown Redmond. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries and this final EIS considers 24 build alternatives, a No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives. A total of 19 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue via I-90. The preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M) for Segment B would leave the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continue north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE to approximately SE 6th Street. Two preferred alternatives for Segment C, the 108th NE At-Grade Alternative (C11A) and the110th NE Tunnel Alternative (C9T), would travel through downtown Bellevue between approximately SE 6th and NE 12th Streets on either an at-grade or tunnel profile. Segment D, Bel-Red/Overlake, would travel from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center through the Bel-Red corridor. Two design options are associated with the preferred NE 16th At-Grade Alternative (D2A): the 120th Station Design Option, which involves changes in vertical profile at the 120th Station; and the NE 24th Design Option, which involves a route change along NE 24th Street and 152nd Avenue NE and a different location for the Overlake Village Station. Segment E, Downtown Redmond, would travel from Overlake Transit Center via the State Route 520 corridor until West Lake Sammamish Parkway and then proceed by way of Marymoor Park through Downtown Redmond via the former BNSF Railway corridor to the termination point at the Downtown Redmond Station. Total costs for the preferred alternatives for all segments are estimated in 2007 dollars at $2.9 to $3.4 billion if preferred alternative C11A is selected, or $3.1 to $3.7 billion if preferred alternative C9T is selected. Construction is expected to start in 2015, with operation under way between 2022 and 2023. Segment E to Downtown Redmond would be constructed after 2023. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would expand capacity and improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project-wide preferred alternatives would: adversely affect levels of service at 11 to 13 traffic intersections; displace 49 residences and 59 to 81 businesses; impact 0.7 acres of wetlands and 2.6 to 3.0 acres of wildlife habitat; create noise impacts to 367 to 445 receptors; permanently impact 5.8 to 6.0 acres of parks; and affect one or two historic properties. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1 and 10-0509D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110219, Executive Summary--78 pages, Final EIS--640 pages on DVD, Appendices--DVD, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842700?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 8 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842693; 14983-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842693?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 11 of 25] T2 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842675; 14979-9_0011 AB - PURPOSE: An 18-mile extension of light rail transit (LRT) in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington is proposed. The East Link LRT Project would connect to Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authoritys Central Link at the International District/Chinatown Station, and then travel east across Lake Washington via Interstate 90 (I90) to Mercer Island, Downtown Bellevue, and Bel-Red/Overlake, terminating in Downtown Redmond. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries and this final EIS considers 24 build alternatives, a No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives. A total of 19 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue via I-90. The preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M) for Segment B would leave the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continue north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE to approximately SE 6th Street. Two preferred alternatives for Segment C, the 108th NE At-Grade Alternative (C11A) and the110th NE Tunnel Alternative (C9T), would travel through downtown Bellevue between approximately SE 6th and NE 12th Streets on either an at-grade or tunnel profile. Segment D, Bel-Red/Overlake, would travel from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center through the Bel-Red corridor. Two design options are associated with the preferred NE 16th At-Grade Alternative (D2A): the 120th Station Design Option, which involves changes in vertical profile at the 120th Station; and the NE 24th Design Option, which involves a route change along NE 24th Street and 152nd Avenue NE and a different location for the Overlake Village Station. Segment E, Downtown Redmond, would travel from Overlake Transit Center via the State Route 520 corridor until West Lake Sammamish Parkway and then proceed by way of Marymoor Park through Downtown Redmond via the former BNSF Railway corridor to the termination point at the Downtown Redmond Station. Total costs for the preferred alternatives for all segments are estimated in 2007 dollars at $2.9 to $3.4 billion if preferred alternative C11A is selected, or $3.1 to $3.7 billion if preferred alternative C9T is selected. Construction is expected to start in 2015, with operation under way between 2022 and 2023. Segment E to Downtown Redmond would be constructed after 2023. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would expand capacity and improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project-wide preferred alternatives would: adversely affect levels of service at 11 to 13 traffic intersections; displace 49 residences and 59 to 81 businesses; impact 0.7 acres of wetlands and 2.6 to 3.0 acres of wildlife habitat; create noise impacts to 367 to 445 receptors; permanently impact 5.8 to 6.0 acres of parks; and affect one or two historic properties. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1 and 10-0509D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110219, Executive Summary--78 pages, Final EIS--640 pages on DVD, Appendices--DVD, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842675?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 7 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842672; 14983-3_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842672?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 13 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842650; 14983-3_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842650?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 8 of 25] T2 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842631; 14979-9_0008 AB - PURPOSE: An 18-mile extension of light rail transit (LRT) in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington is proposed. The East Link LRT Project would connect to Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authoritys Central Link at the International District/Chinatown Station, and then travel east across Lake Washington via Interstate 90 (I90) to Mercer Island, Downtown Bellevue, and Bel-Red/Overlake, terminating in Downtown Redmond. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries and this final EIS considers 24 build alternatives, a No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives. A total of 19 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue via I-90. The preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M) for Segment B would leave the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continue north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE to approximately SE 6th Street. Two preferred alternatives for Segment C, the 108th NE At-Grade Alternative (C11A) and the110th NE Tunnel Alternative (C9T), would travel through downtown Bellevue between approximately SE 6th and NE 12th Streets on either an at-grade or tunnel profile. Segment D, Bel-Red/Overlake, would travel from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center through the Bel-Red corridor. Two design options are associated with the preferred NE 16th At-Grade Alternative (D2A): the 120th Station Design Option, which involves changes in vertical profile at the 120th Station; and the NE 24th Design Option, which involves a route change along NE 24th Street and 152nd Avenue NE and a different location for the Overlake Village Station. Segment E, Downtown Redmond, would travel from Overlake Transit Center via the State Route 520 corridor until West Lake Sammamish Parkway and then proceed by way of Marymoor Park through Downtown Redmond via the former BNSF Railway corridor to the termination point at the Downtown Redmond Station. Total costs for the preferred alternatives for all segments are estimated in 2007 dollars at $2.9 to $3.4 billion if preferred alternative C11A is selected, or $3.1 to $3.7 billion if preferred alternative C9T is selected. Construction is expected to start in 2015, with operation under way between 2022 and 2023. Segment E to Downtown Redmond would be constructed after 2023. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would expand capacity and improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project-wide preferred alternatives would: adversely affect levels of service at 11 to 13 traffic intersections; displace 49 residences and 59 to 81 businesses; impact 0.7 acres of wetlands and 2.6 to 3.0 acres of wildlife habitat; create noise impacts to 367 to 445 receptors; permanently impact 5.8 to 6.0 acres of parks; and affect one or two historic properties. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1 and 10-0509D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110219, Executive Summary--78 pages, Final EIS--640 pages on DVD, Appendices--DVD, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842631?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 12 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842627; 14983-3_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842627?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 7 of 25] T2 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842619; 14979-9_0007 AB - PURPOSE: An 18-mile extension of light rail transit (LRT) in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington is proposed. The East Link LRT Project would connect to Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authoritys Central Link at the International District/Chinatown Station, and then travel east across Lake Washington via Interstate 90 (I90) to Mercer Island, Downtown Bellevue, and Bel-Red/Overlake, terminating in Downtown Redmond. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries and this final EIS considers 24 build alternatives, a No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives. A total of 19 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue via I-90. The preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M) for Segment B would leave the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continue north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE to approximately SE 6th Street. Two preferred alternatives for Segment C, the 108th NE At-Grade Alternative (C11A) and the110th NE Tunnel Alternative (C9T), would travel through downtown Bellevue between approximately SE 6th and NE 12th Streets on either an at-grade or tunnel profile. Segment D, Bel-Red/Overlake, would travel from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center through the Bel-Red corridor. Two design options are associated with the preferred NE 16th At-Grade Alternative (D2A): the 120th Station Design Option, which involves changes in vertical profile at the 120th Station; and the NE 24th Design Option, which involves a route change along NE 24th Street and 152nd Avenue NE and a different location for the Overlake Village Station. Segment E, Downtown Redmond, would travel from Overlake Transit Center via the State Route 520 corridor until West Lake Sammamish Parkway and then proceed by way of Marymoor Park through Downtown Redmond via the former BNSF Railway corridor to the termination point at the Downtown Redmond Station. Total costs for the preferred alternatives for all segments are estimated in 2007 dollars at $2.9 to $3.4 billion if preferred alternative C11A is selected, or $3.1 to $3.7 billion if preferred alternative C9T is selected. Construction is expected to start in 2015, with operation under way between 2022 and 2023. Segment E to Downtown Redmond would be constructed after 2023. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would expand capacity and improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project-wide preferred alternatives would: adversely affect levels of service at 11 to 13 traffic intersections; displace 49 residences and 59 to 81 businesses; impact 0.7 acres of wetlands and 2.6 to 3.0 acres of wildlife habitat; create noise impacts to 367 to 445 receptors; permanently impact 5.8 to 6.0 acres of parks; and affect one or two historic properties. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1 and 10-0509D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110219, Executive Summary--78 pages, Final EIS--640 pages on DVD, Appendices--DVD, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842619?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 10 of 25] T2 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842617; 14979-9_0010 AB - PURPOSE: An 18-mile extension of light rail transit (LRT) in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington is proposed. The East Link LRT Project would connect to Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authoritys Central Link at the International District/Chinatown Station, and then travel east across Lake Washington via Interstate 90 (I90) to Mercer Island, Downtown Bellevue, and Bel-Red/Overlake, terminating in Downtown Redmond. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries and this final EIS considers 24 build alternatives, a No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives. A total of 19 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue via I-90. The preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M) for Segment B would leave the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continue north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE to approximately SE 6th Street. Two preferred alternatives for Segment C, the 108th NE At-Grade Alternative (C11A) and the110th NE Tunnel Alternative (C9T), would travel through downtown Bellevue between approximately SE 6th and NE 12th Streets on either an at-grade or tunnel profile. Segment D, Bel-Red/Overlake, would travel from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center through the Bel-Red corridor. Two design options are associated with the preferred NE 16th At-Grade Alternative (D2A): the 120th Station Design Option, which involves changes in vertical profile at the 120th Station; and the NE 24th Design Option, which involves a route change along NE 24th Street and 152nd Avenue NE and a different location for the Overlake Village Station. Segment E, Downtown Redmond, would travel from Overlake Transit Center via the State Route 520 corridor until West Lake Sammamish Parkway and then proceed by way of Marymoor Park through Downtown Redmond via the former BNSF Railway corridor to the termination point at the Downtown Redmond Station. Total costs for the preferred alternatives for all segments are estimated in 2007 dollars at $2.9 to $3.4 billion if preferred alternative C11A is selected, or $3.1 to $3.7 billion if preferred alternative C9T is selected. Construction is expected to start in 2015, with operation under way between 2022 and 2023. Segment E to Downtown Redmond would be constructed after 2023. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would expand capacity and improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project-wide preferred alternatives would: adversely affect levels of service at 11 to 13 traffic intersections; displace 49 residences and 59 to 81 businesses; impact 0.7 acres of wetlands and 2.6 to 3.0 acres of wildlife habitat; create noise impacts to 367 to 445 receptors; permanently impact 5.8 to 6.0 acres of parks; and affect one or two historic properties. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1 and 10-0509D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110219, Executive Summary--78 pages, Final EIS--640 pages on DVD, Appendices--DVD, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842617?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 6 of 25] T2 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842612; 14979-9_0006 AB - PURPOSE: An 18-mile extension of light rail transit (LRT) in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington is proposed. The East Link LRT Project would connect to Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authoritys Central Link at the International District/Chinatown Station, and then travel east across Lake Washington via Interstate 90 (I90) to Mercer Island, Downtown Bellevue, and Bel-Red/Overlake, terminating in Downtown Redmond. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries and this final EIS considers 24 build alternatives, a No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives. A total of 19 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue via I-90. The preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M) for Segment B would leave the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continue north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE to approximately SE 6th Street. Two preferred alternatives for Segment C, the 108th NE At-Grade Alternative (C11A) and the110th NE Tunnel Alternative (C9T), would travel through downtown Bellevue between approximately SE 6th and NE 12th Streets on either an at-grade or tunnel profile. Segment D, Bel-Red/Overlake, would travel from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center through the Bel-Red corridor. Two design options are associated with the preferred NE 16th At-Grade Alternative (D2A): the 120th Station Design Option, which involves changes in vertical profile at the 120th Station; and the NE 24th Design Option, which involves a route change along NE 24th Street and 152nd Avenue NE and a different location for the Overlake Village Station. Segment E, Downtown Redmond, would travel from Overlake Transit Center via the State Route 520 corridor until West Lake Sammamish Parkway and then proceed by way of Marymoor Park through Downtown Redmond via the former BNSF Railway corridor to the termination point at the Downtown Redmond Station. Total costs for the preferred alternatives for all segments are estimated in 2007 dollars at $2.9 to $3.4 billion if preferred alternative C11A is selected, or $3.1 to $3.7 billion if preferred alternative C9T is selected. Construction is expected to start in 2015, with operation under way between 2022 and 2023. Segment E to Downtown Redmond would be constructed after 2023. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would expand capacity and improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project-wide preferred alternatives would: adversely affect levels of service at 11 to 13 traffic intersections; displace 49 residences and 59 to 81 businesses; impact 0.7 acres of wetlands and 2.6 to 3.0 acres of wildlife habitat; create noise impacts to 367 to 445 receptors; permanently impact 5.8 to 6.0 acres of parks; and affect one or two historic properties. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1 and 10-0509D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110219, Executive Summary--78 pages, Final EIS--640 pages on DVD, Appendices--DVD, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842612?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 4 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842602; 14983-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842602?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 9 of 25] T2 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842598; 14979-9_0009 AB - PURPOSE: An 18-mile extension of light rail transit (LRT) in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington is proposed. The East Link LRT Project would connect to Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authoritys Central Link at the International District/Chinatown Station, and then travel east across Lake Washington via Interstate 90 (I90) to Mercer Island, Downtown Bellevue, and Bel-Red/Overlake, terminating in Downtown Redmond. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries and this final EIS considers 24 build alternatives, a No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives. A total of 19 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue via I-90. The preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M) for Segment B would leave the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continue north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE to approximately SE 6th Street. Two preferred alternatives for Segment C, the 108th NE At-Grade Alternative (C11A) and the110th NE Tunnel Alternative (C9T), would travel through downtown Bellevue between approximately SE 6th and NE 12th Streets on either an at-grade or tunnel profile. Segment D, Bel-Red/Overlake, would travel from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center through the Bel-Red corridor. Two design options are associated with the preferred NE 16th At-Grade Alternative (D2A): the 120th Station Design Option, which involves changes in vertical profile at the 120th Station; and the NE 24th Design Option, which involves a route change along NE 24th Street and 152nd Avenue NE and a different location for the Overlake Village Station. Segment E, Downtown Redmond, would travel from Overlake Transit Center via the State Route 520 corridor until West Lake Sammamish Parkway and then proceed by way of Marymoor Park through Downtown Redmond via the former BNSF Railway corridor to the termination point at the Downtown Redmond Station. Total costs for the preferred alternatives for all segments are estimated in 2007 dollars at $2.9 to $3.4 billion if preferred alternative C11A is selected, or $3.1 to $3.7 billion if preferred alternative C9T is selected. Construction is expected to start in 2015, with operation under way between 2022 and 2023. Segment E to Downtown Redmond would be constructed after 2023. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would expand capacity and improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project-wide preferred alternatives would: adversely affect levels of service at 11 to 13 traffic intersections; displace 49 residences and 59 to 81 businesses; impact 0.7 acres of wetlands and 2.6 to 3.0 acres of wildlife habitat; create noise impacts to 367 to 445 receptors; permanently impact 5.8 to 6.0 acres of parks; and affect one or two historic properties. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1 and 10-0509D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110219, Executive Summary--78 pages, Final EIS--640 pages on DVD, Appendices--DVD, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842598?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 5 of 25] T2 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842592; 14979-9_0005 AB - PURPOSE: An 18-mile extension of light rail transit (LRT) in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington is proposed. The East Link LRT Project would connect to Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authoritys Central Link at the International District/Chinatown Station, and then travel east across Lake Washington via Interstate 90 (I90) to Mercer Island, Downtown Bellevue, and Bel-Red/Overlake, terminating in Downtown Redmond. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries and this final EIS considers 24 build alternatives, a No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives. A total of 19 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue via I-90. The preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M) for Segment B would leave the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continue north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE to approximately SE 6th Street. Two preferred alternatives for Segment C, the 108th NE At-Grade Alternative (C11A) and the110th NE Tunnel Alternative (C9T), would travel through downtown Bellevue between approximately SE 6th and NE 12th Streets on either an at-grade or tunnel profile. Segment D, Bel-Red/Overlake, would travel from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center through the Bel-Red corridor. Two design options are associated with the preferred NE 16th At-Grade Alternative (D2A): the 120th Station Design Option, which involves changes in vertical profile at the 120th Station; and the NE 24th Design Option, which involves a route change along NE 24th Street and 152nd Avenue NE and a different location for the Overlake Village Station. Segment E, Downtown Redmond, would travel from Overlake Transit Center via the State Route 520 corridor until West Lake Sammamish Parkway and then proceed by way of Marymoor Park through Downtown Redmond via the former BNSF Railway corridor to the termination point at the Downtown Redmond Station. Total costs for the preferred alternatives for all segments are estimated in 2007 dollars at $2.9 to $3.4 billion if preferred alternative C11A is selected, or $3.1 to $3.7 billion if preferred alternative C9T is selected. Construction is expected to start in 2015, with operation under way between 2022 and 2023. Segment E to Downtown Redmond would be constructed after 2023. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would expand capacity and improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project-wide preferred alternatives would: adversely affect levels of service at 11 to 13 traffic intersections; displace 49 residences and 59 to 81 businesses; impact 0.7 acres of wetlands and 2.6 to 3.0 acres of wildlife habitat; create noise impacts to 367 to 445 receptors; permanently impact 5.8 to 6.0 acres of parks; and affect one or two historic properties. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1 and 10-0509D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110219, Executive Summary--78 pages, Final EIS--640 pages on DVD, Appendices--DVD, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842592?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 3 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842583; 14983-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842583?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 2 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842559; 14983-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842559?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 35 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842556; 14983-3_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842556?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842534; 14983-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842534?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 33 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842532; 14983-3_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842532?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 34 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842521; 14983-3_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842521?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 32 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842496; 14983-3_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842496?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 31 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842469; 14983-3_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842469?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 20 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842460; 14983-3_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842460?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 30 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842415; 14983-3_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842415?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 29 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842376; 14983-3_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842376?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 19 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842331; 14983-3_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842331?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 18 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842304; 14983-3_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842304?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 17 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842263; 14983-3_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842263?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 16 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884842192; 14983-3_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884842192?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 24 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884841699; 14983-3_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884841699?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 23 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884841698; 14983-3_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884841698?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 28 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884841697; 14983-3_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884841697?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 27 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884841696; 14983-3_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884841696?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 22 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884841695; 14983-3_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884841695?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 26 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884841694; 14983-3_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884841694?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 25 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884841693; 14983-3_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884841693?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 21 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884841692; 14983-3_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884841692?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 6 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884841617; 14983-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884841617?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 5 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884841616; 14983-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884841616?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 9 of 38] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884840473; 14983-3_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884840473?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 884114564; 14983 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The viaduct sustained damage during the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake and is seismically vulnerable and at the end of its useful life. A March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. The number of build alternatives was reduced to two in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS and a new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 and comparatively evaluated in the 2010 second supplemental draft EIS. This final EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative in addition to the Bored Tunnel Alternative, Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and Elevated Structure Alternative, each with and without tolls. The preferred Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace State Route 99 (SR 99) with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and an eight-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. Access to and from SR 99 in the south portal area would be provided with new ramps at S. Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way South. A new signalized intersection at Alaskan Way South and S. Dearborn Street would provide access to and from East Marginal Way South, which would run along the west side of SR 99. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by S. Dearborn Street, Railroad Way South, and Alaskan Way South. In the north portal area, access would be provided with new ramps near Harrison and Republican Streets. Surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area and a tunnel operations building would be constructed between Thomas and Harrison Streets on the east side of Sixth Avenue North. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. Construction would take about 5.4 years and $2.8 billion of state funding has been committed. If tolling is not implemented, $400 million in funding would be needed from another source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. Traffic-generated noise levels, which approach or exceed criteria at 41 of the 70 sites modeled for the study, would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require: partial or full acquisition of 12 commercial properties and 55 subsurface parcels; removal of four buildings and the relocation or displacement of 152 workers; removal of 390 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. During construction, SR 99 would be restricted for 52 months and closed for three weeks. Individual Puget Sound chinook salmon in the adjacent Elliott Bay could be affected. 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first and second supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4, 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 10-0506D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110223, Final EIS--286 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elliott Bay KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884114564?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 16385746; 14979 AB - PURPOSE: An 18-mile extension of light rail transit (LRT) in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington is proposed. The East Link LRT Project would connect to Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authoritys Central Link at the International District/Chinatown Station, and then travel east across Lake Washington via Interstate 90 (I90) to Mercer Island, Downtown Bellevue, and Bel-Red/Overlake, terminating in Downtown Redmond. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries and this final EIS considers 24 build alternatives, a No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives. A total of 19 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue via I-90. The preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M) for Segment B would leave the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continue north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE to approximately SE 6th Street. Two preferred alternatives for Segment C, the 108th NE At-Grade Alternative (C11A) and the110th NE Tunnel Alternative (C9T), would travel through downtown Bellevue between approximately SE 6th and NE 12th Streets on either an at-grade or tunnel profile. Segment D, Bel-Red/Overlake, would travel from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center through the Bel-Red corridor. Two design options are associated with the preferred NE 16th At-Grade Alternative (D2A): the 120th Station Design Option, which involves changes in vertical profile at the 120th Station; and the NE 24th Design Option, which involves a route change along NE 24th Street and 152nd Avenue NE and a different location for the Overlake Village Station. Segment E, Downtown Redmond, would travel from Overlake Transit Center via the State Route 520 corridor until West Lake Sammamish Parkway and then proceed by way of Marymoor Park through Downtown Redmond via the former BNSF Railway corridor to the termination point at the Downtown Redmond Station. Total costs for the preferred alternatives for all segments are estimated in 2007 dollars at $2.9 to $3.4 billion if preferred alternative C11A is selected, or $3.1 to $3.7 billion if preferred alternative C9T is selected. Construction is expected to start in 2015, with operation under way between 2022 and 2023. Segment E to Downtown Redmond would be constructed after 2023. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would expand capacity and improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project-wide preferred alternatives would: adversely affect levels of service at 11 to 13 traffic intersections; displace 49 residences and 59 to 81 businesses; impact 0.7 acres of wetlands and 2.6 to 3.0 acres of wildlife habitat; create noise impacts to 367 to 445 receptors; permanently impact 5.8 to 6.0 acres of parks; and affect one or two historic properties. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1 and 10-0509D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110219, Executive Summary--78 pages, Final EIS--640 pages on DVD, Appendices--DVD, July 15, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16385746?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Size and settling velocities of cohesive flocs and suspended sediment aggregates in a trailing suction hopper dredge plume AN - 1244692489; 2013-007829 AB - A field experiment was conducted to quantify settling velocities, aggregate states, and flocculation within a hopper dredge plume. Particular interest was in determining the abundance of dense, bed aggregates suspended from the consolidated bed during dredging. A suspended sediment plume from the hopper dredge Essayons was sampled for a period of 90 min after dredging. Settling velocities and suspended particle sizes were quantified through sampling with the Particle Imaging Camera System (PICS) and automated image processing routines. The sediment plume was identified and a profiling instrumentation frame was positioned within the plume using Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) backscatter. Results indicated that suspended bed aggregates (defined by densities of 1200-1800kg m (super -3) ) represented 0.2-0.5 of total suspended mass, and flocs (densities<1200 kg m (super -3) ) represented 0.5-0.8 of total suspended mass. The peak diameter of bed aggregates and flocs occurred near 90 and 200mu m, respectively, corresponding to peak settling velocities of about 1 mm s (super -1) in each case. Floc settling velocities increased with particle size d (super 1.1) , while bed aggregate settling velocity increased like d (super 1.3) . JF - Continental Shelf Research AU - Smith, S Jarrell AU - Friedrichs, Carl T Y1 - 2011/07/15/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Jul 15 SP - S50 EP - S63 PB - Elsevier, Oxford VL - 31 IS - 10, Suppl. 1 SN - 0278-4343, 0278-4343 KW - United States KW - flocculation KW - settling KW - plumes KW - laser methods KW - sediment transport KW - surface water KW - geophysical methods KW - suspended materials KW - environmental effects KW - models KW - California KW - dredging KW - acoustical methods KW - San Francisco Bay KW - transport KW - sediments KW - velocity KW - acoustic Doppler current profiler data KW - estuarine environment KW - image analysis KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1244692489?accountid=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=Continental+Shelf+Research&rft.atitle=Size+and+settling+velocities+of+cohesive+flocs+and+suspended+sediment+aggregates+in+a+trailing+suction+hopper+dredge+plume&rft.au=Smith%2C+S+Jarrell%3BFriedrichs%2C+Carl+T&rft.aulast=Smith&rft.aufirst=S&rft.date=2011-07-15&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=10%2C+Suppl.+1&rft.spage=S50&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Continental+Shelf+Research&rft.issn=02784343&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.csr.2010.04.002 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02784343 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 9th international conference on Nearshore and estuarine cohesive sediment transport processes N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2013, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2013-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 58 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-12-27 N1 - CODEN - CSHRDZ N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - acoustic Doppler current profiler data; acoustical methods; California; dredging; environmental effects; estuarine environment; flocculation; geophysical methods; image analysis; laser methods; models; plumes; San Francisco Bay; sediment transport; sediments; settling; surface water; suspended materials; transport; United States; velocity DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2010.04.002 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 69 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884425737; 14972-2_0069 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 69 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884425737?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 68 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884425736; 14972-2_0068 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 68 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884425736?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 67 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884425735; 14972-2_0067 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 67 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884425735?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 66 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884425734; 14972-2_0066 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 66 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884425734?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 65 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884425733; 14972-2_0065 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 65 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884425733?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 51 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884425732; 14972-2_0051 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 51 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884425732?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 45 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884425731; 14972-2_0045 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 45 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884425731?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 58 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884422214; 14972-2_0058 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 58 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884422214?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 57 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884422211; 14972-2_0057 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 57 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884422211?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 56 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884422209; 14972-2_0056 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 56 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884422209?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884422205; 14972-2_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884422205?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884422200; 14972-2_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884422200?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 60 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884422116; 14972-2_0060 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 60 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884422116?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 59 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884422115; 14972-2_0059 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 59 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884422115?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 24 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884422114; 14972-2_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884422114?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 20 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884422113; 14972-2_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884422113?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884422112; 14972-2_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884422112?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 63 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884421816; 14972-2_0063 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 63 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884421816?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 62 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884421811; 14972-2_0062 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 62 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884421811?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 61 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884421808; 14972-2_0061 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 61 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884421808?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 42 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884421799; 14972-2_0042 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884421799?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 41 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884421795; 14972-2_0041 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884421795?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 47 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884421655; 14972-2_0047 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 47 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884421655?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 28 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884421648; 14972-2_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884421648?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 27 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884421636; 14972-2_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884421636?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 64 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884421438; 14972-2_0064 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 64 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884421438?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 37 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884421435; 14972-2_0037 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884421435?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 30 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884421431; 14972-2_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884421431?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 50 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884421119; 14972-2_0050 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 50 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884421119?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 49 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884421116; 14972-2_0049 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884421116?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 48 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884421112; 14972-2_0048 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 48 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884421112?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 54 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884420885; 14972-2_0054 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 54 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884420885?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 53 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884420882; 14972-2_0053 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 53 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884420882?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 33 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884419949; 14972-2_0033 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884419949?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 23 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884419793; 14972-2_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884419793?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 22 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884419779; 14972-2_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884419779?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 21 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884419766; 14972-2_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884419766?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884419757; 14972-2_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884419757?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884419746; 14972-2_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884419746?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884419735; 14972-2_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884419735?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884419724; 14972-2_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884419724?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884419709; 14972-2_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884419709?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 52 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884417397; 14972-2_0052 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 52 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884417397?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884417363; 14972-2_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884417363?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884417319; 14972-2_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884417319?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 55 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884416790; 14972-2_0055 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 55 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884416790?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884416764; 14972-2_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884416764?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884416722; 14972-2_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884416722?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884416668; 14972-2_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884416668?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884416625; 14972-2_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884416625?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 36 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884416534; 14972-2_0036 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884416534?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 35 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884416487; 14972-2_0035 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884416487?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 34 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884416440; 14972-2_0034 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884416440?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 29 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884416397; 14972-2_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884416397?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 40 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884416321; 14972-2_0040 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884416321?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 39 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884416272; 14972-2_0039 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884416272?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 38 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884416209; 14972-2_0038 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884416209?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 44 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884416193; 14972-2_0044 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 44 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884416193?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 43 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884416143; 14972-2_0043 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884416143?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884415651; 14972-2_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884415651?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884415611; 14972-2_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884415611?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884415588; 14972-2_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884415588?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884415563; 14972-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884415563?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884415547; 14972-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884415547?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 46 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884415533; 14972-2_0046 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 46 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884415533?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 26 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884415489; 14972-2_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884415489?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 25 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884415452; 14972-2_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884415452?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 32 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884413857; 14972-2_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884413857?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 31 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884413842; 14972-2_0031 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884413842?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 70 of 70] T2 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884409609; 14972-2_0070 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale 465-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo, and authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed facility. Key issues identified during scoping include concerns regarding: the placement of a large wind project on largely undisturbed desert land, conflict with designated recreational and wilderness uses in the project area, impacts of the project on biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. The OWEF would be constructed in two phases. Phase I is anticipated to total 315 MW, with the installation of up to 137 wind turbines; and Phase II would include the construction of 18 wind turbines generating up to 150 MW, and would likely to be built in the year immediately following completion of Phase I. The Sunrise Powerlink, an approved 500-kilovolt transmission line, crosses the proposed project site, facilitating interconnection of the proposed OWEF and transmission of its renewable energy output to key load centers in southern California. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. Under the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, the wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,436 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also result in impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines at night would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110212, Draft EIS--867 pages, Appendices--620 pages, July 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 70 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409609?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Characterization of silver nanoparticles using flow-field flow fractionation interfaced to inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. AN - 873119407; 21247580 AB - The ability to detect and identify the physiochemical form of contaminants in the environment is important for degradation, fate and transport, and toxicity studies. This is particularly true of nanomaterials that exist as discrete particles rather than dissolved or sorbed contaminant molecules in the environment. Nanoparticles will tend to agglomerate or dissolve, based on solution chemistry, which will drastically affect their environmental properties. The current study investigates the use of field flow fractionation (FFF) interfaced to inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) as a sensitive and selective method for detection and characterization of silver nanoparticles. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) is used to verify the morphology and primary particle size and size distribution of precisely engineered silver nanoparticles. Subsequently, the hydrodynamic size measurements by FFF are compared to dynamic light scattering (DLS) to verify the accuracy of the size determination. Additionally, the sensitivity of the ICP-MS detector is demonstrated by fractionation of μg/L concentrations of mixed silver nanoparticle standards. The technique has been applied to nanoparticle suspensions prior to use in toxicity studies, and post-exposure biological tissue analysis. Silver nanoparticles extracted from tissues of the sediment-dwelling, freshwater oligochaete Lumbriculus variegatus increased in size from approximately 31-46nm, indicating a significant change in the nanoparticle characteristics during exposure. Published by Elsevier B.V. JF - Journal of chromatography. A AU - Poda, A R AU - Bednar, A J AU - Kennedy, A J AU - Harmon, A AU - Hull, M AU - Mitrano, D M AU - Ranville, J F AU - Steevens, J AD - Environmental Laboratory, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd., Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA. Aimee.R.Poda@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2011/07/08/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Jul 08 SP - 4219 EP - 4225 VL - 1218 IS - 27 KW - Silver KW - 3M4G523W1G KW - Index Medicus KW - Sensitivity and Specificity KW - Microscopy, Electron, Transmission KW - Animals KW - Analysis of Variance KW - Scattering, Radiation KW - Reproducibility of Results KW - Particle Size KW - Light KW - Statistics, Nonparametric KW - Oligochaeta KW - Silver -- chemistry KW - Metal Nanoparticles -- chemistry KW - Metal Nanoparticles -- ultrastructure KW - Mass Spectrometry -- methods KW - Fractionation, Field Flow -- methods UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873119407?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+chromatography.+A&rft.atitle=Characterization+of+silver+nanoparticles+using+flow-field+flow+fractionation+interfaced+to+inductively+coupled+plasma+mass+spectrometry.&rft.au=Poda%2C+A+R%3BBednar%2C+A+J%3BKennedy%2C+A+J%3BHarmon%2C+A%3BHull%2C+M%3BMitrano%2C+D+M%3BRanville%2C+J+F%3BSteevens%2C+J&rft.aulast=Poda&rft.aufirst=A&rft.date=2011-07-08&rft.volume=1218&rft.issue=27&rft.spage=4219&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+chromatography.+A&rft.issn=1873-3778&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.chroma.2010.12.076 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2011-09-08 N1 - Date created - 2011-06-20 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2010.12.076 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Response of Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers to Military Training Operations AN - 902369049; 15518908 AB - Military lands are a valuable resource in recovery of threatened, endangered, and at-risk species worldwide and have the highest density of threatened and endangered species of all major land management agencies in the United States. Many red-cockaded woodpeckers (Picoides borealis) that reside on federal lands occur on 15 military installations in the southeastern United States. This close association has increased concern over potential conflicts between conservation requirements of endangered species and the military's mission of combat readiness. Our objectives were to 1) determine if military training operations affect behavior, reproductive success, and productivity of red-cockaded woodpeckers; 2) develop a frequency-weighting function to assess woodpecker hearing sensitivity; 3) identify factors that affect woodpecker responses to military training operations; 4) develop distance and dose-response thresholds for quantifying woodpecker responses to noise levels and stimulus distances; 5) characterize military training operations through quantification of sound levels, source identification, distance from active woodpecker nests, frequency spectra, duration, and frequency of occurrence; and 6) document baseline woodpecker nesting behavior. We conducted our study on the Fort Stewart Military Installation located in southeast Georgia, USA. JF - Wildlife Monographs AU - Delaney, David K AU - Pater, Larry L AU - Carlile, Lawrence D AU - Spadgenske, Eric W AU - Beaty, Timothy A AU - Melton, Robert H AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, P.O. Box 9005, Champaign, IL 61826, USA Y1 - 2011/07// PY - 2011 DA - Jul 2011 SP - 1 EP - 38 PB - Wildlife Society VL - 177 IS - mo1 SN - 0084-0173, 0084-0173 KW - Sustainability Science Abstracts KW - conflicts KW - Land management KW - Training KW - Picoides borealis KW - Noise levels KW - USA, Georgia KW - USA, Southeast KW - Dose-response effects KW - Endangered species KW - Reproduction KW - Military KW - nesting behavior KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/902369049?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Assamodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Wildlife+Monographs&rft.atitle=Response+of+Red-Cockaded+Woodpeckers+to+Military+Training+Operations&rft.au=Delaney%2C+David+K%3BPater%2C+Larry+L%3BCarlile%2C+Lawrence+D%3BSpadgenske%2C+Eric+W%3BBeaty%2C+Timothy+A%3BMelton%2C+Robert+H&rft.aulast=Delaney&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2011-07-01&rft.volume=177&rft.issue=mo1&rft.spage=1&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Wildlife+Monographs&rft.issn=00840173&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fwmon.3 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-29 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - conflicts; Land management; Training; Dose-response effects; Noise levels; Endangered species; Reproduction; nesting behavior; Military; Picoides borealis; USA, Georgia; USA, Southeast DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wmon.3 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Longshore Sediment Movement and Supply along the U.S. Shoreline of Lake Erie AN - 893272116; 15466300 AB - To establish existing conditions for dredge material beneficial use projects and to help implement principles of Regional Sediment Management (RSM) into projects and studies, this paper is an assessment of sediment sources and sinks, physical processes, and longshore sediment transport along the west and south shore of Lake Erie. This summary compiles information from a widely scattered technical literature and synthesizes the results in preparation for development of a sediment budget. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Morang, Andrew AU - Mohr, Michael C AU - Forgette, Craig M AD - Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, U.S.A. Y1 - 2011/07// PY - 2011 DA - July 2011 SP - 619 EP - 635 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation VL - 27 IS - 4 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Bluff retreat KW - shoreline change KW - harbors KW - glacial till KW - harbor KW - jetty KW - shore protection KW - sand KW - Sediment Transport KW - Longshore sediment transport KW - Coastal research KW - Shores KW - Sinks KW - Beneficial Use KW - North America, Erie L. KW - Sediments KW - Sediment movement KW - Dredges KW - USA KW - Sediment sources KW - Assessments KW - Sediment transport KW - Coasts KW - Q2 09262:Methods and instruments KW - SW 0850:Lakes KW - O 3050:Sediment Dynamics KW - M2 551.468:Coastal Oceanography (551.468) UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/893272116?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Awaterresources&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.atitle=Longshore+Sediment+Movement+and+Supply+along+the+U.S.+Shoreline+of+Lake+Erie&rft.au=Morang%2C+Andrew%3BMohr%2C+Michael+C%3BForgette%2C+Craig+M&rft.aulast=Morang&rft.aufirst=Andrew&rft.date=2011-07-01&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=619&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/10.2112%2FJCOASTRES-D-09-00145.1 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-29 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Longshore sediment transport; Sediment sources; Sediment transport; Sediment movement; Coasts; Dredges; Coastal research; Sediment Transport; Assessments; Sinks; Shores; Beneficial Use; Sediments; USA; North America, Erie L. DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-09-00145.1 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). [Part 13 of 13] T2 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). AN - 884409762; 14969-9_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) for the endangered Alabama beach mouse (ABM) to two applicants intending to develop residential/recreational condominiums within a 205.6-acre site on the Fort Morgan Peninsula in Baldwin County, Alabama is proposed. The developments under consideration, Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands, have been proposed by Fort Morgan Paradise Joint Venture and Gulf Highlands Condominiums, LLC, respectively. Two ITPs were issued in 2007 to address primary, secondary, and scrub dune habitat of the ABM, but these ITPs, together with the supporting habitat conservation plan (HCP) and applications, were withdrawn by the permittees on December 16, 2008 after legal challenges and resultant court rulings. The applicants revised their plans and repositioned the condominium projects about 600 feet further inland to avoid habitats considered essential for the ABMs survival and continued existence. The permittees own 181.9 acres within the development site and the remaining 23.7 acres are on Baldwin County public road rights-of-way. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the revised preferred alternative (Alternative 3), the Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands condominium complexes would be located on the eastern and western sides of Gulf Way Drive, respectively, and the north side of Avenue B and the tertiary dune system. The preferred development plans, as described in the August 2009 HCP, would include seven multi-story condominium towers, two double-deck parking garages, four dune walkovers up to 12 feet wide, amenities (swimming pools, tennis courts, Lazy River, walking path, and golf cart path), and a commercial development on the northeast property boundary. Except for the dune walkovers (1.6 acres) and a recreational facility (0.1 acre) which would extend into frontal and/or tertiary dunes, the 38.66-acre developed footprint would be located within interior scrub habitat. Under the revised joint HCP, 135.2 acres of the remaining 167 acres of undeveloped lands on the project site would be preserved in perpetuity via conservation easement for the benefit of the ABM. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would protect critical habitat for the endangered mouse species while allowing for market-driven residential and recreational development of the site. The permittees would dedicate 135.2 acres of coastal dune habitat into conservation status via covenants, conditions and restrictions attached to the property, and conditions of any ITP that may be issued. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would permanently impact 38.7 acres of scrub habitat and 1.36 acres of seasonally-inundated palustrine emergent wetlands. Increased human presence on the beach could result in disturbance to nesting sea turtles. The development would be constructed in an area under seasonal threat of hurricane landfall. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0434D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 07-0146F, Volume 31, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110209, Supplemental Draft EIS and Appendices--175 pages, July 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Easements KW - Housing KW - Hurricanes KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, 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/884409762?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.title=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). [Part 12 of 13] T2 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). AN - 884409761; 14969-9_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) for the endangered Alabama beach mouse (ABM) to two applicants intending to develop residential/recreational condominiums within a 205.6-acre site on the Fort Morgan Peninsula in Baldwin County, Alabama is proposed. The developments under consideration, Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands, have been proposed by Fort Morgan Paradise Joint Venture and Gulf Highlands Condominiums, LLC, respectively. Two ITPs were issued in 2007 to address primary, secondary, and scrub dune habitat of the ABM, but these ITPs, together with the supporting habitat conservation plan (HCP) and applications, were withdrawn by the permittees on December 16, 2008 after legal challenges and resultant court rulings. The applicants revised their plans and repositioned the condominium projects about 600 feet further inland to avoid habitats considered essential for the ABMs survival and continued existence. The permittees own 181.9 acres within the development site and the remaining 23.7 acres are on Baldwin County public road rights-of-way. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the revised preferred alternative (Alternative 3), the Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands condominium complexes would be located on the eastern and western sides of Gulf Way Drive, respectively, and the north side of Avenue B and the tertiary dune system. The preferred development plans, as described in the August 2009 HCP, would include seven multi-story condominium towers, two double-deck parking garages, four dune walkovers up to 12 feet wide, amenities (swimming pools, tennis courts, Lazy River, walking path, and golf cart path), and a commercial development on the northeast property boundary. Except for the dune walkovers (1.6 acres) and a recreational facility (0.1 acre) which would extend into frontal and/or tertiary dunes, the 38.66-acre developed footprint would be located within interior scrub habitat. Under the revised joint HCP, 135.2 acres of the remaining 167 acres of undeveloped lands on the project site would be preserved in perpetuity via conservation easement for the benefit of the ABM. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would protect critical habitat for the endangered mouse species while allowing for market-driven residential and recreational development of the site. The permittees would dedicate 135.2 acres of coastal dune habitat into conservation status via covenants, conditions and restrictions attached to the property, and conditions of any ITP that may be issued. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would permanently impact 38.7 acres of scrub habitat and 1.36 acres of seasonally-inundated palustrine emergent wetlands. Increased human presence on the beach could result in disturbance to nesting sea turtles. The development would be constructed in an area under seasonal threat of hurricane landfall. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0434D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 07-0146F, Volume 31, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110209, Supplemental Draft EIS and Appendices--175 pages, July 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Easements KW - Housing KW - Hurricanes KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, 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/884409761?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2014-10-01&rft.volume=104&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=535&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Criminal+Law+%26+Criminology&rft.issn=00914169&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). [Part 11 of 13] T2 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). AN - 884409758; 14969-9_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) for the endangered Alabama beach mouse (ABM) to two applicants intending to develop residential/recreational condominiums within a 205.6-acre site on the Fort Morgan Peninsula in Baldwin County, Alabama is proposed. The developments under consideration, Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands, have been proposed by Fort Morgan Paradise Joint Venture and Gulf Highlands Condominiums, LLC, respectively. Two ITPs were issued in 2007 to address primary, secondary, and scrub dune habitat of the ABM, but these ITPs, together with the supporting habitat conservation plan (HCP) and applications, were withdrawn by the permittees on December 16, 2008 after legal challenges and resultant court rulings. The applicants revised their plans and repositioned the condominium projects about 600 feet further inland to avoid habitats considered essential for the ABMs survival and continued existence. The permittees own 181.9 acres within the development site and the remaining 23.7 acres are on Baldwin County public road rights-of-way. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the revised preferred alternative (Alternative 3), the Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands condominium complexes would be located on the eastern and western sides of Gulf Way Drive, respectively, and the north side of Avenue B and the tertiary dune system. The preferred development plans, as described in the August 2009 HCP, would include seven multi-story condominium towers, two double-deck parking garages, four dune walkovers up to 12 feet wide, amenities (swimming pools, tennis courts, Lazy River, walking path, and golf cart path), and a commercial development on the northeast property boundary. Except for the dune walkovers (1.6 acres) and a recreational facility (0.1 acre) which would extend into frontal and/or tertiary dunes, the 38.66-acre developed footprint would be located within interior scrub habitat. Under the revised joint HCP, 135.2 acres of the remaining 167 acres of undeveloped lands on the project site would be preserved in perpetuity via conservation easement for the benefit of the ABM. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would protect critical habitat for the endangered mouse species while allowing for market-driven residential and recreational development of the site. The permittees would dedicate 135.2 acres of coastal dune habitat into conservation status via covenants, conditions and restrictions attached to the property, and conditions of any ITP that may be issued. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would permanently impact 38.7 acres of scrub habitat and 1.36 acres of seasonally-inundated palustrine emergent wetlands. Increased human presence on the beach could result in disturbance to nesting sea turtles. The development would be constructed in an area under seasonal threat of hurricane landfall. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0434D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 07-0146F, Volume 31, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110209, Supplemental Draft EIS and Appendices--175 pages, July 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Easements KW - Housing KW - Hurricanes KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, 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/884409758?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.title=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). [Part 1 of 13] T2 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). AN - 884409755; 14969-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) for the endangered Alabama beach mouse (ABM) to two applicants intending to develop residential/recreational condominiums within a 205.6-acre site on the Fort Morgan Peninsula in Baldwin County, Alabama is proposed. The developments under consideration, Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands, have been proposed by Fort Morgan Paradise Joint Venture and Gulf Highlands Condominiums, LLC, respectively. Two ITPs were issued in 2007 to address primary, secondary, and scrub dune habitat of the ABM, but these ITPs, together with the supporting habitat conservation plan (HCP) and applications, were withdrawn by the permittees on December 16, 2008 after legal challenges and resultant court rulings. The applicants revised their plans and repositioned the condominium projects about 600 feet further inland to avoid habitats considered essential for the ABMs survival and continued existence. The permittees own 181.9 acres within the development site and the remaining 23.7 acres are on Baldwin County public road rights-of-way. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the revised preferred alternative (Alternative 3), the Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands condominium complexes would be located on the eastern and western sides of Gulf Way Drive, respectively, and the north side of Avenue B and the tertiary dune system. The preferred development plans, as described in the August 2009 HCP, would include seven multi-story condominium towers, two double-deck parking garages, four dune walkovers up to 12 feet wide, amenities (swimming pools, tennis courts, Lazy River, walking path, and golf cart path), and a commercial development on the northeast property boundary. Except for the dune walkovers (1.6 acres) and a recreational facility (0.1 acre) which would extend into frontal and/or tertiary dunes, the 38.66-acre developed footprint would be located within interior scrub habitat. Under the revised joint HCP, 135.2 acres of the remaining 167 acres of undeveloped lands on the project site would be preserved in perpetuity via conservation easement for the benefit of the ABM. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would protect critical habitat for the endangered mouse species while allowing for market-driven residential and recreational development of the site. The permittees would dedicate 135.2 acres of coastal dune habitat into conservation status via covenants, conditions and restrictions attached to the property, and conditions of any ITP that may be issued. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would permanently impact 38.7 acres of scrub habitat and 1.36 acres of seasonally-inundated palustrine emergent wetlands. Increased human presence on the beach could result in disturbance to nesting sea turtles. The development would be constructed in an area under seasonal threat of hurricane landfall. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0434D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 07-0146F, Volume 31, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110209, Supplemental Draft EIS and Appendices--175 pages, July 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Easements KW - Housing KW - Hurricanes KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, 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/884409755?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.title=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). [Part 10 of 13] T2 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). AN - 884409495; 14969-9_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) for the endangered Alabama beach mouse (ABM) to two applicants intending to develop residential/recreational condominiums within a 205.6-acre site on the Fort Morgan Peninsula in Baldwin County, Alabama is proposed. The developments under consideration, Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands, have been proposed by Fort Morgan Paradise Joint Venture and Gulf Highlands Condominiums, LLC, respectively. Two ITPs were issued in 2007 to address primary, secondary, and scrub dune habitat of the ABM, but these ITPs, together with the supporting habitat conservation plan (HCP) and applications, were withdrawn by the permittees on December 16, 2008 after legal challenges and resultant court rulings. The applicants revised their plans and repositioned the condominium projects about 600 feet further inland to avoid habitats considered essential for the ABMs survival and continued existence. The permittees own 181.9 acres within the development site and the remaining 23.7 acres are on Baldwin County public road rights-of-way. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the revised preferred alternative (Alternative 3), the Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands condominium complexes would be located on the eastern and western sides of Gulf Way Drive, respectively, and the north side of Avenue B and the tertiary dune system. The preferred development plans, as described in the August 2009 HCP, would include seven multi-story condominium towers, two double-deck parking garages, four dune walkovers up to 12 feet wide, amenities (swimming pools, tennis courts, Lazy River, walking path, and golf cart path), and a commercial development on the northeast property boundary. Except for the dune walkovers (1.6 acres) and a recreational facility (0.1 acre) which would extend into frontal and/or tertiary dunes, the 38.66-acre developed footprint would be located within interior scrub habitat. Under the revised joint HCP, 135.2 acres of the remaining 167 acres of undeveloped lands on the project site would be preserved in perpetuity via conservation easement for the benefit of the ABM. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would protect critical habitat for the endangered mouse species while allowing for market-driven residential and recreational development of the site. The permittees would dedicate 135.2 acres of coastal dune habitat into conservation status via covenants, conditions and restrictions attached to the property, and conditions of any ITP that may be issued. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would permanently impact 38.7 acres of scrub habitat and 1.36 acres of seasonally-inundated palustrine emergent wetlands. Increased human presence on the beach could result in disturbance to nesting sea turtles. The development would be constructed in an area under seasonal threat of hurricane landfall. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0434D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 07-0146F, Volume 31, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110209, Supplemental Draft EIS and Appendices--175 pages, July 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Easements KW - Housing KW - Hurricanes KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, 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/884409495?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.title=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). [Part 9 of 13] T2 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). AN - 884409490; 14969-9_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) for the endangered Alabama beach mouse (ABM) to two applicants intending to develop residential/recreational condominiums within a 205.6-acre site on the Fort Morgan Peninsula in Baldwin County, Alabama is proposed. The developments under consideration, Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands, have been proposed by Fort Morgan Paradise Joint Venture and Gulf Highlands Condominiums, LLC, respectively. Two ITPs were issued in 2007 to address primary, secondary, and scrub dune habitat of the ABM, but these ITPs, together with the supporting habitat conservation plan (HCP) and applications, were withdrawn by the permittees on December 16, 2008 after legal challenges and resultant court rulings. The applicants revised their plans and repositioned the condominium projects about 600 feet further inland to avoid habitats considered essential for the ABMs survival and continued existence. The permittees own 181.9 acres within the development site and the remaining 23.7 acres are on Baldwin County public road rights-of-way. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the revised preferred alternative (Alternative 3), the Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands condominium complexes would be located on the eastern and western sides of Gulf Way Drive, respectively, and the north side of Avenue B and the tertiary dune system. The preferred development plans, as described in the August 2009 HCP, would include seven multi-story condominium towers, two double-deck parking garages, four dune walkovers up to 12 feet wide, amenities (swimming pools, tennis courts, Lazy River, walking path, and golf cart path), and a commercial development on the northeast property boundary. Except for the dune walkovers (1.6 acres) and a recreational facility (0.1 acre) which would extend into frontal and/or tertiary dunes, the 38.66-acre developed footprint would be located within interior scrub habitat. Under the revised joint HCP, 135.2 acres of the remaining 167 acres of undeveloped lands on the project site would be preserved in perpetuity via conservation easement for the benefit of the ABM. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would protect critical habitat for the endangered mouse species while allowing for market-driven residential and recreational development of the site. The permittees would dedicate 135.2 acres of coastal dune habitat into conservation status via covenants, conditions and restrictions attached to the property, and conditions of any ITP that may be issued. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would permanently impact 38.7 acres of scrub habitat and 1.36 acres of seasonally-inundated palustrine emergent wetlands. Increased human presence on the beach could result in disturbance to nesting sea turtles. The development would be constructed in an area under seasonal threat of hurricane landfall. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0434D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 07-0146F, Volume 31, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110209, Supplemental Draft EIS and Appendices--175 pages, July 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Easements KW - Housing KW - Hurricanes KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, 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/884409490?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.title=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). [Part 8 of 13] T2 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). AN - 884409487; 14969-9_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) for the endangered Alabama beach mouse (ABM) to two applicants intending to develop residential/recreational condominiums within a 205.6-acre site on the Fort Morgan Peninsula in Baldwin County, Alabama is proposed. The developments under consideration, Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands, have been proposed by Fort Morgan Paradise Joint Venture and Gulf Highlands Condominiums, LLC, respectively. Two ITPs were issued in 2007 to address primary, secondary, and scrub dune habitat of the ABM, but these ITPs, together with the supporting habitat conservation plan (HCP) and applications, were withdrawn by the permittees on December 16, 2008 after legal challenges and resultant court rulings. The applicants revised their plans and repositioned the condominium projects about 600 feet further inland to avoid habitats considered essential for the ABMs survival and continued existence. The permittees own 181.9 acres within the development site and the remaining 23.7 acres are on Baldwin County public road rights-of-way. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the revised preferred alternative (Alternative 3), the Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands condominium complexes would be located on the eastern and western sides of Gulf Way Drive, respectively, and the north side of Avenue B and the tertiary dune system. The preferred development plans, as described in the August 2009 HCP, would include seven multi-story condominium towers, two double-deck parking garages, four dune walkovers up to 12 feet wide, amenities (swimming pools, tennis courts, Lazy River, walking path, and golf cart path), and a commercial development on the northeast property boundary. Except for the dune walkovers (1.6 acres) and a recreational facility (0.1 acre) which would extend into frontal and/or tertiary dunes, the 38.66-acre developed footprint would be located within interior scrub habitat. Under the revised joint HCP, 135.2 acres of the remaining 167 acres of undeveloped lands on the project site would be preserved in perpetuity via conservation easement for the benefit of the ABM. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would protect critical habitat for the endangered mouse species while allowing for market-driven residential and recreational development of the site. The permittees would dedicate 135.2 acres of coastal dune habitat into conservation status via covenants, conditions and restrictions attached to the property, and conditions of any ITP that may be issued. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would permanently impact 38.7 acres of scrub habitat and 1.36 acres of seasonally-inundated palustrine emergent wetlands. Increased human presence on the beach could result in disturbance to nesting sea turtles. The development would be constructed in an area under seasonal threat of hurricane landfall. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0434D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 07-0146F, Volume 31, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110209, Supplemental Draft EIS and Appendices--175 pages, July 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Easements KW - Housing KW - Hurricanes KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, 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/884409487?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.title=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). [Part 7 of 13] T2 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). AN - 884409485; 14969-9_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) for the endangered Alabama beach mouse (ABM) to two applicants intending to develop residential/recreational condominiums within a 205.6-acre site on the Fort Morgan Peninsula in Baldwin County, Alabama is proposed. The developments under consideration, Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands, have been proposed by Fort Morgan Paradise Joint Venture and Gulf Highlands Condominiums, LLC, respectively. Two ITPs were issued in 2007 to address primary, secondary, and scrub dune habitat of the ABM, but these ITPs, together with the supporting habitat conservation plan (HCP) and applications, were withdrawn by the permittees on December 16, 2008 after legal challenges and resultant court rulings. The applicants revised their plans and repositioned the condominium projects about 600 feet further inland to avoid habitats considered essential for the ABMs survival and continued existence. The permittees own 181.9 acres within the development site and the remaining 23.7 acres are on Baldwin County public road rights-of-way. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the revised preferred alternative (Alternative 3), the Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands condominium complexes would be located on the eastern and western sides of Gulf Way Drive, respectively, and the north side of Avenue B and the tertiary dune system. The preferred development plans, as described in the August 2009 HCP, would include seven multi-story condominium towers, two double-deck parking garages, four dune walkovers up to 12 feet wide, amenities (swimming pools, tennis courts, Lazy River, walking path, and golf cart path), and a commercial development on the northeast property boundary. Except for the dune walkovers (1.6 acres) and a recreational facility (0.1 acre) which would extend into frontal and/or tertiary dunes, the 38.66-acre developed footprint would be located within interior scrub habitat. Under the revised joint HCP, 135.2 acres of the remaining 167 acres of undeveloped lands on the project site would be preserved in perpetuity via conservation easement for the benefit of the ABM. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would protect critical habitat for the endangered mouse species while allowing for market-driven residential and recreational development of the site. The permittees would dedicate 135.2 acres of coastal dune habitat into conservation status via covenants, conditions and restrictions attached to the property, and conditions of any ITP that may be issued. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would permanently impact 38.7 acres of scrub habitat and 1.36 acres of seasonally-inundated palustrine emergent wetlands. Increased human presence on the beach could result in disturbance to nesting sea turtles. The development would be constructed in an area under seasonal threat of hurricane landfall. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0434D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 07-0146F, Volume 31, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110209, Supplemental Draft EIS and Appendices--175 pages, July 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Easements KW - Housing KW - Hurricanes KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, 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/884409485?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.title=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). [Part 6 of 13] T2 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). AN - 884409483; 14969-9_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) for the endangered Alabama beach mouse (ABM) to two applicants intending to develop residential/recreational condominiums within a 205.6-acre site on the Fort Morgan Peninsula in Baldwin County, Alabama is proposed. The developments under consideration, Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands, have been proposed by Fort Morgan Paradise Joint Venture and Gulf Highlands Condominiums, LLC, respectively. Two ITPs were issued in 2007 to address primary, secondary, and scrub dune habitat of the ABM, but these ITPs, together with the supporting habitat conservation plan (HCP) and applications, were withdrawn by the permittees on December 16, 2008 after legal challenges and resultant court rulings. The applicants revised their plans and repositioned the condominium projects about 600 feet further inland to avoid habitats considered essential for the ABMs survival and continued existence. The permittees own 181.9 acres within the development site and the remaining 23.7 acres are on Baldwin County public road rights-of-way. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the revised preferred alternative (Alternative 3), the Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands condominium complexes would be located on the eastern and western sides of Gulf Way Drive, respectively, and the north side of Avenue B and the tertiary dune system. The preferred development plans, as described in the August 2009 HCP, would include seven multi-story condominium towers, two double-deck parking garages, four dune walkovers up to 12 feet wide, amenities (swimming pools, tennis courts, Lazy River, walking path, and golf cart path), and a commercial development on the northeast property boundary. Except for the dune walkovers (1.6 acres) and a recreational facility (0.1 acre) which would extend into frontal and/or tertiary dunes, the 38.66-acre developed footprint would be located within interior scrub habitat. Under the revised joint HCP, 135.2 acres of the remaining 167 acres of undeveloped lands on the project site would be preserved in perpetuity via conservation easement for the benefit of the ABM. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would protect critical habitat for the endangered mouse species while allowing for market-driven residential and recreational development of the site. The permittees would dedicate 135.2 acres of coastal dune habitat into conservation status via covenants, conditions and restrictions attached to the property, and conditions of any ITP that may be issued. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would permanently impact 38.7 acres of scrub habitat and 1.36 acres of seasonally-inundated palustrine emergent wetlands. Increased human presence on the beach could result in disturbance to nesting sea turtles. The development would be constructed in an area under seasonal threat of hurricane landfall. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0434D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 07-0146F, Volume 31, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110209, Supplemental Draft EIS and Appendices--175 pages, July 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Easements KW - Housing KW - Hurricanes KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, 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/884409483?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.title=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). [Part 5 of 13] T2 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). AN - 884409480; 14969-9_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) for the endangered Alabama beach mouse (ABM) to two applicants intending to develop residential/recreational condominiums within a 205.6-acre site on the Fort Morgan Peninsula in Baldwin County, Alabama is proposed. The developments under consideration, Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands, have been proposed by Fort Morgan Paradise Joint Venture and Gulf Highlands Condominiums, LLC, respectively. Two ITPs were issued in 2007 to address primary, secondary, and scrub dune habitat of the ABM, but these ITPs, together with the supporting habitat conservation plan (HCP) and applications, were withdrawn by the permittees on December 16, 2008 after legal challenges and resultant court rulings. The applicants revised their plans and repositioned the condominium projects about 600 feet further inland to avoid habitats considered essential for the ABMs survival and continued existence. The permittees own 181.9 acres within the development site and the remaining 23.7 acres are on Baldwin County public road rights-of-way. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the revised preferred alternative (Alternative 3), the Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands condominium complexes would be located on the eastern and western sides of Gulf Way Drive, respectively, and the north side of Avenue B and the tertiary dune system. The preferred development plans, as described in the August 2009 HCP, would include seven multi-story condominium towers, two double-deck parking garages, four dune walkovers up to 12 feet wide, amenities (swimming pools, tennis courts, Lazy River, walking path, and golf cart path), and a commercial development on the northeast property boundary. Except for the dune walkovers (1.6 acres) and a recreational facility (0.1 acre) which would extend into frontal and/or tertiary dunes, the 38.66-acre developed footprint would be located within interior scrub habitat. Under the revised joint HCP, 135.2 acres of the remaining 167 acres of undeveloped lands on the project site would be preserved in perpetuity via conservation easement for the benefit of the ABM. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would protect critical habitat for the endangered mouse species while allowing for market-driven residential and recreational development of the site. The permittees would dedicate 135.2 acres of coastal dune habitat into conservation status via covenants, conditions and restrictions attached to the property, and conditions of any ITP that may be issued. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would permanently impact 38.7 acres of scrub habitat and 1.36 acres of seasonally-inundated palustrine emergent wetlands. Increased human presence on the beach could result in disturbance to nesting sea turtles. The development would be constructed in an area under seasonal threat of hurricane landfall. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0434D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 07-0146F, Volume 31, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110209, Supplemental Draft EIS and Appendices--175 pages, July 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Easements KW - Housing KW - Hurricanes KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, 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/884409480?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.title=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). [Part 4 of 13] T2 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). AN - 884409477; 14969-9_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) for the endangered Alabama beach mouse (ABM) to two applicants intending to develop residential/recreational condominiums within a 205.6-acre site on the Fort Morgan Peninsula in Baldwin County, Alabama is proposed. The developments under consideration, Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands, have been proposed by Fort Morgan Paradise Joint Venture and Gulf Highlands Condominiums, LLC, respectively. Two ITPs were issued in 2007 to address primary, secondary, and scrub dune habitat of the ABM, but these ITPs, together with the supporting habitat conservation plan (HCP) and applications, were withdrawn by the permittees on December 16, 2008 after legal challenges and resultant court rulings. The applicants revised their plans and repositioned the condominium projects about 600 feet further inland to avoid habitats considered essential for the ABMs survival and continued existence. The permittees own 181.9 acres within the development site and the remaining 23.7 acres are on Baldwin County public road rights-of-way. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the revised preferred alternative (Alternative 3), the Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands condominium complexes would be located on the eastern and western sides of Gulf Way Drive, respectively, and the north side of Avenue B and the tertiary dune system. The preferred development plans, as described in the August 2009 HCP, would include seven multi-story condominium towers, two double-deck parking garages, four dune walkovers up to 12 feet wide, amenities (swimming pools, tennis courts, Lazy River, walking path, and golf cart path), and a commercial development on the northeast property boundary. Except for the dune walkovers (1.6 acres) and a recreational facility (0.1 acre) which would extend into frontal and/or tertiary dunes, the 38.66-acre developed footprint would be located within interior scrub habitat. Under the revised joint HCP, 135.2 acres of the remaining 167 acres of undeveloped lands on the project site would be preserved in perpetuity via conservation easement for the benefit of the ABM. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would protect critical habitat for the endangered mouse species while allowing for market-driven residential and recreational development of the site. The permittees would dedicate 135.2 acres of coastal dune habitat into conservation status via covenants, conditions and restrictions attached to the property, and conditions of any ITP that may be issued. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would permanently impact 38.7 acres of scrub habitat and 1.36 acres of seasonally-inundated palustrine emergent wetlands. Increased human presence on the beach could result in disturbance to nesting sea turtles. The development would be constructed in an area under seasonal threat of hurricane landfall. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0434D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 07-0146F, Volume 31, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110209, Supplemental Draft EIS and Appendices--175 pages, July 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Easements KW - Housing KW - Hurricanes KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, 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/884409477?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.title=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). [Part 3 of 13] T2 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). AN - 884409475; 14969-9_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) for the endangered Alabama beach mouse (ABM) to two applicants intending to develop residential/recreational condominiums within a 205.6-acre site on the Fort Morgan Peninsula in Baldwin County, Alabama is proposed. The developments under consideration, Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands, have been proposed by Fort Morgan Paradise Joint Venture and Gulf Highlands Condominiums, LLC, respectively. Two ITPs were issued in 2007 to address primary, secondary, and scrub dune habitat of the ABM, but these ITPs, together with the supporting habitat conservation plan (HCP) and applications, were withdrawn by the permittees on December 16, 2008 after legal challenges and resultant court rulings. The applicants revised their plans and repositioned the condominium projects about 600 feet further inland to avoid habitats considered essential for the ABMs survival and continued existence. The permittees own 181.9 acres within the development site and the remaining 23.7 acres are on Baldwin County public road rights-of-way. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the revised preferred alternative (Alternative 3), the Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands condominium complexes would be located on the eastern and western sides of Gulf Way Drive, respectively, and the north side of Avenue B and the tertiary dune system. The preferred development plans, as described in the August 2009 HCP, would include seven multi-story condominium towers, two double-deck parking garages, four dune walkovers up to 12 feet wide, amenities (swimming pools, tennis courts, Lazy River, walking path, and golf cart path), and a commercial development on the northeast property boundary. Except for the dune walkovers (1.6 acres) and a recreational facility (0.1 acre) which would extend into frontal and/or tertiary dunes, the 38.66-acre developed footprint would be located within interior scrub habitat. Under the revised joint HCP, 135.2 acres of the remaining 167 acres of undeveloped lands on the project site would be preserved in perpetuity via conservation easement for the benefit of the ABM. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would protect critical habitat for the endangered mouse species while allowing for market-driven residential and recreational development of the site. The permittees would dedicate 135.2 acres of coastal dune habitat into conservation status via covenants, conditions and restrictions attached to the property, and conditions of any ITP that may be issued. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would permanently impact 38.7 acres of scrub habitat and 1.36 acres of seasonally-inundated palustrine emergent wetlands. Increased human presence on the beach could result in disturbance to nesting sea turtles. The development would be constructed in an area under seasonal threat of hurricane landfall. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0434D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 07-0146F, Volume 31, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110209, Supplemental Draft EIS and Appendices--175 pages, July 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Easements KW - Housing KW - Hurricanes KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, 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/884409475?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.title=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). [Part 2 of 13] T2 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). AN - 884409470; 14969-9_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) for the endangered Alabama beach mouse (ABM) to two applicants intending to develop residential/recreational condominiums within a 205.6-acre site on the Fort Morgan Peninsula in Baldwin County, Alabama is proposed. The developments under consideration, Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands, have been proposed by Fort Morgan Paradise Joint Venture and Gulf Highlands Condominiums, LLC, respectively. Two ITPs were issued in 2007 to address primary, secondary, and scrub dune habitat of the ABM, but these ITPs, together with the supporting habitat conservation plan (HCP) and applications, were withdrawn by the permittees on December 16, 2008 after legal challenges and resultant court rulings. The applicants revised their plans and repositioned the condominium projects about 600 feet further inland to avoid habitats considered essential for the ABMs survival and continued existence. The permittees own 181.9 acres within the development site and the remaining 23.7 acres are on Baldwin County public road rights-of-way. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the revised preferred alternative (Alternative 3), the Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands condominium complexes would be located on the eastern and western sides of Gulf Way Drive, respectively, and the north side of Avenue B and the tertiary dune system. The preferred development plans, as described in the August 2009 HCP, would include seven multi-story condominium towers, two double-deck parking garages, four dune walkovers up to 12 feet wide, amenities (swimming pools, tennis courts, Lazy River, walking path, and golf cart path), and a commercial development on the northeast property boundary. Except for the dune walkovers (1.6 acres) and a recreational facility (0.1 acre) which would extend into frontal and/or tertiary dunes, the 38.66-acre developed footprint would be located within interior scrub habitat. Under the revised joint HCP, 135.2 acres of the remaining 167 acres of undeveloped lands on the project site would be preserved in perpetuity via conservation easement for the benefit of the ABM. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would protect critical habitat for the endangered mouse species while allowing for market-driven residential and recreational development of the site. The permittees would dedicate 135.2 acres of coastal dune habitat into conservation status via covenants, conditions and restrictions attached to the property, and conditions of any ITP that may be issued. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would permanently impact 38.7 acres of scrub habitat and 1.36 acres of seasonally-inundated palustrine emergent wetlands. Increased human presence on the beach could result in disturbance to nesting sea turtles. The development would be constructed in an area under seasonal threat of hurricane landfall. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0434D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 07-0146F, Volume 31, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110209, Supplemental Draft EIS and Appendices--175 pages, July 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Easements KW - Housing KW - Hurricanes KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, 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/884409470?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.title=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEACH CLUB WEST AND GULF HIGHLANDS CONDOMINIUMS RESIDENTIAL/RECREATIONAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). AN - 16379932; 14969 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) for the endangered Alabama beach mouse (ABM) to two applicants intending to develop residential/recreational condominiums within a 205.6-acre site on the Fort Morgan Peninsula in Baldwin County, Alabama is proposed. The developments under consideration, Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands, have been proposed by Fort Morgan Paradise Joint Venture and Gulf Highlands Condominiums, LLC, respectively. Two ITPs were issued in 2007 to address primary, secondary, and scrub dune habitat of the ABM, but these ITPs, together with the supporting habitat conservation plan (HCP) and applications, were withdrawn by the permittees on December 16, 2008 after legal challenges and resultant court rulings. The applicants revised their plans and repositioned the condominium projects about 600 feet further inland to avoid habitats considered essential for the ABMs survival and continued existence. The permittees own 181.9 acres within the development site and the remaining 23.7 acres are on Baldwin County public road rights-of-way. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the revised preferred alternative (Alternative 3), the Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands condominium complexes would be located on the eastern and western sides of Gulf Way Drive, respectively, and the north side of Avenue B and the tertiary dune system. The preferred development plans, as described in the August 2009 HCP, would include seven multi-story condominium towers, two double-deck parking garages, four dune walkovers up to 12 feet wide, amenities (swimming pools, tennis courts, Lazy River, walking path, and golf cart path), and a commercial development on the northeast property boundary. Except for the dune walkovers (1.6 acres) and a recreational facility (0.1 acre) which would extend into frontal and/or tertiary dunes, the 38.66-acre developed footprint would be located within interior scrub habitat. Under the revised joint HCP, 135.2 acres of the remaining 167 acres of undeveloped lands on the project site would be preserved in perpetuity via conservation easement for the benefit of the ABM. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would protect critical habitat for the endangered mouse species while allowing for market-driven residential and recreational development of the site. The permittees would dedicate 135.2 acres of coastal dune habitat into conservation status via covenants, conditions and restrictions attached to the property, and conditions of any ITP that may be issued. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would permanently impact 38.7 acres of scrub habitat and 1.36 acres of seasonally-inundated palustrine emergent wetlands. Increased human presence on the beach could result in disturbance to nesting sea turtles. The development would be constructed in an area under seasonal threat of hurricane landfall. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0434D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 07-0146F, Volume 31, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110209, Supplemental Draft EIS and Appendices--175 pages, July 1, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Easements KW - Housing KW - Hurricanes KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, 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/16379932?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.title=BEACH+CLUB+WEST+AND+GULF+HIGHLANDS+CONDOMINIUMS+RESIDENTIAL%2FRECREATIONAL+CONDOMINIUM+PROJECTS%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 15 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884411612; 14954-4_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411612?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 14 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884411598; 14954-4_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411598?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 13 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884411591; 14954-4_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411591?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 12 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884411584; 14954-4_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411584?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 7 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884411570; 14954-4_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411570?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 6 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884411557; 14954-4_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411557?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 5 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884411541; 14954-4_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411541?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 4 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884411524; 14954-4_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411524?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 3 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884411515; 14954-4_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411515?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 10 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411426; 14950-0_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411426?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 9 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411418; 14950-0_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411418?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 8 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411410; 14950-0_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411410?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 7 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411404; 14950-0_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411404?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 6 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411395; 14950-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411395?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 5 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411386; 14950-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411386?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 4 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411379; 14950-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411379?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 11 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884411213; 14954-4_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411213?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 10 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884411203; 14954-4_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411203?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 9 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884411193; 14954-4_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411193?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 8 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884411180; 14954-4_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411180?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 2 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884411173; 14954-4_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411173?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 1 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884411161; 14954-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411161?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE (NOV), LOUISIANA, FEDERAL HURRICANE PROTECTION LEVEE, PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE (NOV), LOUISIANA, FEDERAL HURRICANE PROTECTION LEVEE, PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884411149; 14956-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration and accelerated completion of federal levees along the Mississippi River corridor in Plaquemines Parish, in southeastern Louisiana are proposed. The New Orleans to Venice (NOV) Federal Levee Project would restore the elevation of the levees on the east bank from Phoenix to Bohemia and the levees on the west bank from St. Jude to Venice to meet the authorized two percent design grade. The project was initially authorized in the Flood Control Act of 1962. Prior to the landfall of Hurricane Katrina in August of 2005, the project was 85 percent complete with an estimated completion date of September 2018. Congress has provided funding for the restoration, armoring, and accelerated completion of the NOV federal levee through several emergency supplemental appropriation acts. Alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include restoring the elevation of federal levees to meet the 50-year (two percent) level of risk reduction, which is the tentatively selected plan (TSP), and restoring the elevation of levees to meet the authorized pre-Katrina General Design Memorandum level of risk reduction. A No Action Alternative is also considered. The borrow material requirement to restore, armor, and accelerate completion of the entire NOV levee system to the two percent level of risk reduction is estimated at approximately 22.9 million cubic yards of non-compacted clay. The first NOV levee contracts are proposed to be awarded in April 2012, and completion is proposed for 2015. Temporary easements would be utilized for access and staging areas; however, acquisition would be perpetual levee easement/servitude for the levees and associated structures that are under construction. The currently estimated fully funded cost of the TSP, including mitigation, is between $857 million and $1.3 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore the elevation of flood risk reduction structures over a total length of 90 miles to meet authorized design grade, and stabilize those sections of levees where subsoil deficiencies or internal levee deficiencies undermine their strength. Risk to residences, businesses, and other infrastructure from storm-induced and wave-driven storm events in the Gulf of Mexico and high water events in the Mississippi River would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the TSP would impact 147 acres of waters of the U.S., 367 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, 11 acres of other waters, 2,069 acres of floodplains, and 207.5 acres of intertidal marsh and open water bottoms that provide essential fish habitat. Water quality would be temporarily impacted by suspended sediments from levee fill materials. Portions of some major and local roadways are within the proposed footprint of the TSP and would need to be relocated. Based on the availability of funds, the possibility exists that some of the levee sections may proceed through the design stage only, adding a significant level of uncertainty to the project. The source of all required borrow material is currently not known. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1962 (P.L. 87-874). JF - EPA number: 110196, 290 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Flood Control Act of 1962, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411149?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+ORLEANS+TO+VENICE+%28NOV%29%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+FEDERAL+HURRICANE+PROTECTION+LEVEE%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=NEW+ORLEANS+TO+VENICE+%28NOV%29%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+FEDERAL+HURRICANE+PROTECTION+LEVEE%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, Vicksburg, Mississippi; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY SEGMENTS H AND I-1, STATE HIGHWAY 99 FROM US 59 (NORTH) to INTERSTATE 10 (EAST). [Part 2 of 2] T2 - GRAND PARKWAY SEGMENTS H AND I-1, STATE HIGHWAY 99 FROM US 59 (NORTH) to INTERSTATE 10 (EAST). AN - 884411134; 14948-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of 38.2 miles of new highway, a portion of the Grand Parkway known as Segments H and I-1 extending from US 59 (North) to Interstate 10 (East), in Montgomery, Harris, Liberty, and Chambers counties, Texas is proposed. The project would be located in the northeast quadrant of the planned 180-mile long State Highway (SH) 99, a third loop around the greater metropolitan area of Houston. Cities within the project study area include Mont Belvieu, Dayton, Plum Grove, Patton Village, Woodbranch, New Caney, and the town of Roman Forest. Segments H and I-1 are planned as a four-lane, limited access, toll facility within a 400-foot-wide right-of-way and would be built to a 70-mile-per-hour design. SH 99 is an element of the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan, a transportation program developed by the Houston-Galveston Area Council. Transportation improvements are needed in the study area because of a lack of efficient connections to major radial roadways, suburban communities, local ports, and industries. Improvements are also needed because the existing and future transportation demand of the study area exceeds the capacity of the local roadways and many of the study areas roadways have high crash rates. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative (Alternative 1) and 10 reasonable build alternatives. Under Alternative 10, which is the recommended alternative alignment, segments H and I-1 would consist of sections A-4, B-2, and C-3 for a total length of 37 miles. The alignment begins at Community Drive on US 59, 1.5 mi south of FM 1485. Approximately 3.5 miles of Alternative 10 would follow existing FM 1485 with the remaining 33.9 miles on new location. Alternative 10 would require approximately 1,813 acres of right-of-way (ROW). Construction costs are estimated at $522,8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve system linkage, address current and future transportation demand, improve safety and hurricane evacuation, and accommodate population growth in the greater Houston area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The recommended alignment would impact 946 acres of prime farmland, 159 acres of 100-year floodplain, and 644 acres of wildlife habitat. ROW requirements would necessitate the adjustment of utility lines and the filling of aquatic resources including 40.8 acres of potentially jurisdictional wetlands. Five businesses, 41 existing residences and 2 churches would be displaced. Additionally, like all alignments considered, the recommended alignment would affect visual resources in the immediate area, present potential access impacts, and cause changes to community cohesion. The recommended alternative would result in noise impacts to 76 residential and four commercial receivers. 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: 110188, Draft EIS (Volume 1)--718 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume 2)--603 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-07-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas 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/884411134?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY+SEGMENTS+H+AND+I-1%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+FROM+US+59+%28NORTH%29+to+INTERSTATE+10+%28EAST%29.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY+SEGMENTS+H+AND+I-1%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+FROM+US+59+%28NORTH%29+to+INTERSTATE+10+%28EAST%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY SEGMENTS H AND I-1, STATE HIGHWAY 99 FROM US 59 (NORTH) to INTERSTATE 10 (EAST). [Part 1 of 2] T2 - GRAND PARKWAY SEGMENTS H AND I-1, STATE HIGHWAY 99 FROM US 59 (NORTH) to INTERSTATE 10 (EAST). AN - 884411107; 14948-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of 38.2 miles of new highway, a portion of the Grand Parkway known as Segments H and I-1 extending from US 59 (North) to Interstate 10 (East), in Montgomery, Harris, Liberty, and Chambers counties, Texas is proposed. The project would be located in the northeast quadrant of the planned 180-mile long State Highway (SH) 99, a third loop around the greater metropolitan area of Houston. Cities within the project study area include Mont Belvieu, Dayton, Plum Grove, Patton Village, Woodbranch, New Caney, and the town of Roman Forest. Segments H and I-1 are planned as a four-lane, limited access, toll facility within a 400-foot-wide right-of-way and would be built to a 70-mile-per-hour design. SH 99 is an element of the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan, a transportation program developed by the Houston-Galveston Area Council. Transportation improvements are needed in the study area because of a lack of efficient connections to major radial roadways, suburban communities, local ports, and industries. Improvements are also needed because the existing and future transportation demand of the study area exceeds the capacity of the local roadways and many of the study areas roadways have high crash rates. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative (Alternative 1) and 10 reasonable build alternatives. Under Alternative 10, which is the recommended alternative alignment, segments H and I-1 would consist of sections A-4, B-2, and C-3 for a total length of 37 miles. The alignment begins at Community Drive on US 59, 1.5 mi south of FM 1485. Approximately 3.5 miles of Alternative 10 would follow existing FM 1485 with the remaining 33.9 miles on new location. Alternative 10 would require approximately 1,813 acres of right-of-way (ROW). Construction costs are estimated at $522,8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve system linkage, address current and future transportation demand, improve safety and hurricane evacuation, and accommodate population growth in the greater Houston area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The recommended alignment would impact 946 acres of prime farmland, 159 acres of 100-year floodplain, and 644 acres of wildlife habitat. ROW requirements would necessitate the adjustment of utility lines and the filling of aquatic resources including 40.8 acres of potentially jurisdictional wetlands. Five businesses, 41 existing residences and 2 churches would be displaced. Additionally, like all alignments considered, the recommended alignment would affect visual resources in the immediate area, present potential access impacts, and cause changes to community cohesion. The recommended alternative would result in noise impacts to 76 residential and four commercial receivers. 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: 110188, Draft EIS (Volume 1)--718 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume 2)--603 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-07-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas 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/884411107?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY+SEGMENTS+H+AND+I-1%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+FROM+US+59+%28NORTH%29+to+INTERSTATE+10+%28EAST%29.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY+SEGMENTS+H+AND+I-1%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+FROM+US+59+%28NORTH%29+to+INTERSTATE+10+%28EAST%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 15 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411102; 14950-0_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411102?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 14 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411092; 14950-0_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411092?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 13 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411086; 14950-0_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411086?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 12 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411077; 14950-0_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411077?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 11 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411070; 14950-0_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411070?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 3 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411059; 14950-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411059?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 2 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411052; 14950-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411052?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 1 of 15] T2 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 884411043; 14950-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884411043?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 39 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884410519; 14954-4_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884410519?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 29 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884410346; 14954-4_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884410346?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 28 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884410339; 14954-4_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884410339?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 27 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884410334; 14954-4_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884410334?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 26 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884410325; 14954-4_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884410325?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 38 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884410109; 14954-4_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884410109?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 37 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884410101; 14954-4_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884410101?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 36 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884410092; 14954-4_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884410092?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 35 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884410083; 14954-4_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884410083?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 25 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884410082; 14954-4_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884410082?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 34 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884410079; 14954-4_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884410079?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 24 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884410076; 14954-4_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884410076?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 33 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884410074; 14954-4_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884410074?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 23 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884410072; 14954-4_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884410072?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 32 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884410070; 14954-4_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884410070?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 22 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884410064; 14954-4_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884410064?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 31 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884410062; 14954-4_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884410062?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 30 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884410056; 14954-4_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884410056?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 21 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884410054; 14954-4_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884410054?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 20 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884410052; 14954-4_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884410052?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 19 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884410049; 14954-4_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884410049?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 17 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884410039; 14954-4_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884410039?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 16 of 39] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 884410023; 14954-4_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884410023?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, CAMINADA HEADLAND IN LAFOURCHE AND JEFFERSON PARISHES AND SHELL ISLAND IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 878807821; 14954 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of 2,849 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the Barataria Basin barrier shoreline in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The shoreline is a segment of the gulf coast of Louisiana situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The barrier landforms, along with their related hydrologic and biological processes, provide unique biologically diverse habitats that are crucial to the viability of migratory birds, commercial and recreational fisheries, and a great variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study identified the restoration of the Caminada Headland, in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, and Shell Island, in Plaquemines Parish as a critical near-term project for the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline project. Without action, these critical geomorphic features that isolate the Barataria Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the project timeline, construction methods and borrow sources, access to and protection of restored areas, the impact on landowners and users of the project areas, and the impact on threatened and endangered species. Eleven restoration plans for Caminada Headland and nine restoration plans for Shell Island, including No Action alternatives, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The tentatively selected plan is a combination of Caminada Alternative 5 and Shell Island Alternative 5 which would create or restore 1,197 acres of dune and supratidal habitat, and 1,652 acres of intertidal habitat. Caminada Headland Alternative 5 proposes a dune for the length of the shoreline from Belle Pass to Caminada pass. The marsh fill is proposed on the landward side of the dune. Approximately 880 acres of beach/dune and 1,186 acres of marsh would be created or restored, resulting in a total of 2,066 acres. Shell Island Alternative 5 proposes a one-island configuration, closing Coupe Bob. The marsh and dune would be renourished to its original construction template in years 20 and 40. The initial construction would result in 317 acres of beach/dune and 466 acres of marsh, for a total of 783 acres. All of the alternatives for the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches would include various scales of dune and marsh planting, as well as sand fencing. The Mississippi River and Ship Shoal would be used as the borrow sources for the beach/dune restoration. The fully funded cost of the tentatively selected plan is $446 million without renourishment. Because the plan cannot be constructed within the maximum project cost as authorized ($363.9 million), a subset of the plan, Caminada Headland Alternative 5, was selected as the recommended component of construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of coastal landforms would restore the barrier shoreline ecosystem, significantly reduce the loss of estuarine and freshwater wetlands, ensure the ability of the coastal landforms to provide geomorphic and hydrologic form and function, and provide habitat for essential fish and wildlife species. The tentatively selected plan would restore 684 net acres of barrier habitats, including critical habitat for piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve short term and minor water quality impacts, a small reduction to offshore sand resources, impacts on benthic organisms, and potential short-term disruption of fish and wildlife species. Implementation of the tentatively selected plan would require additional authorization from Congress. The long term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on coastal Louisiana are uncertain at this time and problems associated with the oil spill could adversely impact project implementation. Overall performance and benefits of the restoration features could be greatly reduced, or even eliminated, by a powerful tropical weather system. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 110194, Draft EIS--419 pages, Appendices--1,938 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/878807821?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BARATARIA+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+CAMINADA+HEADLAND+IN+LAFOURCHE+AND+JEFFERSON+PARISHES+AND+SHELL+ISLAND+IN+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 - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE (NOV), LOUISIANA, FEDERAL HURRICANE PROTECTION LEVEE, PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 16387156; 14956 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration and accelerated completion of federal levees along the Mississippi River corridor in Plaquemines Parish, in southeastern Louisiana are proposed. The New Orleans to Venice (NOV) Federal Levee Project would restore the elevation of the levees on the east bank from Phoenix to Bohemia and the levees on the west bank from St. Jude to Venice to meet the authorized two percent design grade. The project was initially authorized in the Flood Control Act of 1962. Prior to the landfall of Hurricane Katrina in August of 2005, the project was 85 percent complete with an estimated completion date of September 2018. Congress has provided funding for the restoration, armoring, and accelerated completion of the NOV federal levee through several emergency supplemental appropriation acts. Alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include restoring the elevation of federal levees to meet the 50-year (two percent) level of risk reduction, which is the tentatively selected plan (TSP), and restoring the elevation of levees to meet the authorized pre-Katrina General Design Memorandum level of risk reduction. A No Action Alternative is also considered. The borrow material requirement to restore, armor, and accelerate completion of the entire NOV levee system to the two percent level of risk reduction is estimated at approximately 22.9 million cubic yards of non-compacted clay. The first NOV levee contracts are proposed to be awarded in April 2012, and completion is proposed for 2015. Temporary easements would be utilized for access and staging areas; however, acquisition would be perpetual levee easement/servitude for the levees and associated structures that are under construction. The currently estimated fully funded cost of the TSP, including mitigation, is between $857 million and $1.3 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore the elevation of flood risk reduction structures over a total length of 90 miles to meet authorized design grade, and stabilize those sections of levees where subsoil deficiencies or internal levee deficiencies undermine their strength. Risk to residences, businesses, and other infrastructure from storm-induced and wave-driven storm events in the Gulf of Mexico and high water events in the Mississippi River would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the TSP would impact 147 acres of waters of the U.S., 367 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, 11 acres of other waters, 2,069 acres of floodplains, and 207.5 acres of intertidal marsh and open water bottoms that provide essential fish habitat. Water quality would be temporarily impacted by suspended sediments from levee fill materials. Portions of some major and local roadways are within the proposed footprint of the TSP and would need to be relocated. Based on the availability of funds, the possibility exists that some of the levee sections may proceed through the design stage only, adding a significant level of uncertainty to the project. The source of all required borrow material is currently not known. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1962 (P.L. 87-874). JF - EPA number: 110196, 290 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Flood Control Act of 1962, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16387156?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+ORLEANS+TO+VENICE+%28NOV%29%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+FEDERAL+HURRICANE+PROTECTION+LEVEE%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=NEW+ORLEANS+TO+VENICE+%28NOV%29%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+FEDERAL+HURRICANE+PROTECTION+LEVEE%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, Vicksburg, Mississippi; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TUPELO RAILROAD RELOCATION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 16371066; 14950 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the existing BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line through the City of Tupelo, Mississippi is proposed. Tupelo is a community with a population of approximately 35,000 and its location and accessibility to the railroads have made it an industrial hub for many years, despite several changes in its economy. The study area encompasses the greater Tupelo area, including the southeastern portion of Union County, the eastern portion of Pontotoc County, and all of Lee County. The BNSF and Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) rail lines share an interchange to exchange rail cars just south of downtown Tupelo. The BNSF main line crosses diagonally at-grade at the intersection of Main Street and Gloster Street, locally referred to as Crosstown. This intersection is blocked for a total of over two hours each day by train traffic. In addition to the train traffic from through trains, BNSF and KCS exchange rail cars just south of Crosstown, and this compounds the amount of time this intersection is blocked by rail traffic. There are 12 at-grade roadway-rail crossings in the City of Tupelo, including Crosstown, on the BNSF main line and four at-grade roadway-rail crossings on the KCS rail line that contribute to the traffic and safety issues. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and one reasonable build alternative that would consist of an elevated rail viaduct with limited retaining walls within the existing BNSF right-of-way and a new BNSF-KCS interchange constructed south of the Pvt. John Allen National Fish Hatchery. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required on the south side of the BNSF main line from US 45 to just south of Eason Boulevard to accommodate the proposed storage tracks. Between Jackson Street and Elizabeth Street, the BNSF main line would be constructed on 6,860 feet of bridge structure. The bridge over the Crosstown intersection would span 316 feet, requiring a truss structure. All of the bridge structures would provide at least 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance above the existing roadways and 23 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance over the KCS rail line. Roadway improvements would include the replacement of the US 45 bridges over the BNSF main line and construction of two overpasses on Eason Boulevard, one over the KCS rail line and one over the BNSF main line. Construction cost of the build alternative is estimated at $385 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the railway would reduce vehicular traffic delays in downtown Tupelo, improve the efficiency of railroad operations, and enhance quality of life with regard to traffic flow, noise, and economic development. Response times for emergency vehicles and the safety of the traveling public would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the build alternative, 11 acres of agricultural and vacant land would be converted to railroad right-of-way. Construction would impact 10 acres of 100-year floodplain and involve three new floodway crossings. Increased vibration impacts would affect 18 sites. The elevated rail viaduct would create visual impacts to 37 sites and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110190, Draft EIS--273 pages, Appendices--300 pages and maps, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16371066?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=TUPELO+RAILROAD+RELOCATION+PLANNING+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+TUPELO%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY SEGMENTS H AND I-1, STATE HIGHWAY 99 FROM US 59 (NORTH) to INTERSTATE 10 (EAST). AN - 16367934; 14948 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of 38.2 miles of new highway, a portion of the Grand Parkway known as Segments H and I-1 extending from US 59 (North) to Interstate 10 (East), in Montgomery, Harris, Liberty, and Chambers counties, Texas is proposed. The project would be located in the northeast quadrant of the planned 180-mile long State Highway (SH) 99, a third loop around the greater metropolitan area of Houston. Cities within the project study area include Mont Belvieu, Dayton, Plum Grove, Patton Village, Woodbranch, New Caney, and the town of Roman Forest. Segments H and I-1 are planned as a four-lane, limited access, toll facility within a 400-foot-wide right-of-way and would be built to a 70-mile-per-hour design. SH 99 is an element of the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan, a transportation program developed by the Houston-Galveston Area Council. Transportation improvements are needed in the study area because of a lack of efficient connections to major radial roadways, suburban communities, local ports, and industries. Improvements are also needed because the existing and future transportation demand of the study area exceeds the capacity of the local roadways and many of the study areas roadways have high crash rates. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative (Alternative 1) and 10 reasonable build alternatives. Under Alternative 10, which is the recommended alternative alignment, segments H and I-1 would consist of sections A-4, B-2, and C-3 for a total length of 37 miles. The alignment begins at Community Drive on US 59, 1.5 mi south of FM 1485. Approximately 3.5 miles of Alternative 10 would follow existing FM 1485 with the remaining 33.9 miles on new location. Alternative 10 would require approximately 1,813 acres of right-of-way (ROW). Construction costs are estimated at $522,8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve system linkage, address current and future transportation demand, improve safety and hurricane evacuation, and accommodate population growth in the greater Houston area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The recommended alignment would impact 946 acres of prime farmland, 159 acres of 100-year floodplain, and 644 acres of wildlife habitat. ROW requirements would necessitate the adjustment of utility lines and the filling of aquatic resources including 40.8 acres of potentially jurisdictional wetlands. Five businesses, 41 existing residences and 2 churches would be displaced. Additionally, like all alignments considered, the recommended alignment would affect visual resources in the immediate area, present potential access impacts, and cause changes to community cohesion. The recommended alternative would result in noise impacts to 76 residential and four commercial receivers. 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: 110188, Draft EIS (Volume 1)--718 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume 2)--603 pages, June 24, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-07-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas 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/16367934?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY+SEGMENTS+H+AND+I-1%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+FROM+US+59+%28NORTH%29+to+INTERSTATE+10+%28EAST%29.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY+SEGMENTS+H+AND+I-1%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+FROM+US+59+%28NORTH%29+to+INTERSTATE+10+%28EAST%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Bench-Scale Evaluation of Energy Efficient Air Purification Technologies T2 - 2011 104th Air and Waste Management Association Annual Conference (A&WMA's 2011) AN - 1312996580; 6084410 JF - 2011 104th Air and Waste Management Association Annual Conference (A&WMA's 2011) AU - Nelson, A AU - Page, M AU - Rood, M AU - Ginsberg, M Y1 - 2011/06/21/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Jun 21 KW - Air purification KW - Technology KW - Energy efficiency KW - Purification UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312996580?accountid=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=2011+104th+Air+and+Waste+Management+Association+Annual+Conference+%28A%26WMA%27s+2011%29&rft.atitle=Bench-Scale+Evaluation+of+Energy+Efficient+Air+Purification+Technologies&rft.au=Nelson%2C+A%3BPage%2C+M%3BRood%2C+M%3BGinsberg%2C+M&rft.aulast=Nelson&rft.aufirst=A&rft.date=2011-06-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2011+104th+Air+and+Waste+Management+Association+Annual+Conference+%28A%26WMA%27s+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://events.awma.org/ace2011/PRINTER%20READY%20FINAL%20PROGRAM.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 9] T2 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884409718; 14944-3_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The Madera Irrigation District (MID) Water Supply Enhancement Project (WSEP), west of the city of Madera, in Madera County, California is proposed. MID encompasses 128,292 acres and operates and maintains a gravity irrigation distribution system of 300 miles of open flow canals and 150 miles of pipelines to deliver water to its service area as part of the Hidden Unit (Fresno River) and Friant Division (San Joaquin River) long-term water supply contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. Currently, farmers in MIDs service area use a combination of groundwater and surface water. During dry years, there is not adequate surface water to meet the water demand and groundwater pumping increases substantially, resulting in groundwater overdraft. The WSEP would involve construction of a groundwater bank on the property known as Madera Ranch and allow MID to store a portion of their Central Valley Project (CVP) water from the San Joaquin and Fresno Rivers and other non-CVP water in the newly constructed aquifer. Water would be banked in the aquifer and 10 percent of the water would be left behind to reduce overdraft. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential impacts on water quality, water supply, water rights issues, biological resources, and farm economics. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Reduced Alternative B, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would involve construction and operation of facilities to convey and bank surface water beneath Madera Ranch using 550 acres of natural swales and later to recover up to 90 percent of the banked water for beneficial use. Phase 1 would involve only recharge-related facilities. Phase 2 would involve Phase 2 would involve constructing 323 acres of recharge basins and facilities for recovery of banked water. Reclamation would approve banking of MID CVP water outside the MID service area and issue a permit to extend the Reclamation-owned 24.2 Canal. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help meet current and future water storage needs, enhance water supply reliability and flexibility, reduce aquifer overdraft, and encourage conjunctive use in the region as a means toward self-sufficiency. The project would result in beneficial effects on groundwater recharge rates, subsidence, and socioeconomics because of the increased reliability of water in dry years and the gradual groundwater recharge proposed as part of the WSEP. The preferred alternative would use fewer swales in order to minimize effects to vernal pools and limits the number of recharge basins to the number needed for the project to be practicable. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could involve the moving of up to 2.5 million cubic yards of soil and result in the permanent loss or significant alteration of 454 acres of annual grasslands, alkali grassland, alkali rain pool, vernal pool and freshwater marsh, and cultivated lands. Construction related to installing 87,776 linear feet of recovery pipelines and installing 49 new recovery wells will result in temporary impacts to 326 acres of annual grasslands and alkali grassland. Wildlife species potentially affected include: California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, San Joaquin kit fox, and Fresno kangaroo rat. Residences would be exposed to noise from grading, construction, and well drilling operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Farmland Protection Policy Act, Public Law 11-111, and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0262D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110183, Final EIS--316 pages and maps, Appendices--455 pages, June 17, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Agency number: EIS-06-127 KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Irrigation KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - California KW - Farmland Protection Policy Act, Compliance KW - Public Law 11-111, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409718?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 9] T2 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884409715; 14944-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The Madera Irrigation District (MID) Water Supply Enhancement Project (WSEP), west of the city of Madera, in Madera County, California is proposed. MID encompasses 128,292 acres and operates and maintains a gravity irrigation distribution system of 300 miles of open flow canals and 150 miles of pipelines to deliver water to its service area as part of the Hidden Unit (Fresno River) and Friant Division (San Joaquin River) long-term water supply contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. Currently, farmers in MIDs service area use a combination of groundwater and surface water. During dry years, there is not adequate surface water to meet the water demand and groundwater pumping increases substantially, resulting in groundwater overdraft. The WSEP would involve construction of a groundwater bank on the property known as Madera Ranch and allow MID to store a portion of their Central Valley Project (CVP) water from the San Joaquin and Fresno Rivers and other non-CVP water in the newly constructed aquifer. Water would be banked in the aquifer and 10 percent of the water would be left behind to reduce overdraft. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential impacts on water quality, water supply, water rights issues, biological resources, and farm economics. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Reduced Alternative B, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would involve construction and operation of facilities to convey and bank surface water beneath Madera Ranch using 550 acres of natural swales and later to recover up to 90 percent of the banked water for beneficial use. Phase 1 would involve only recharge-related facilities. Phase 2 would involve Phase 2 would involve constructing 323 acres of recharge basins and facilities for recovery of banked water. Reclamation would approve banking of MID CVP water outside the MID service area and issue a permit to extend the Reclamation-owned 24.2 Canal. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help meet current and future water storage needs, enhance water supply reliability and flexibility, reduce aquifer overdraft, and encourage conjunctive use in the region as a means toward self-sufficiency. The project would result in beneficial effects on groundwater recharge rates, subsidence, and socioeconomics because of the increased reliability of water in dry years and the gradual groundwater recharge proposed as part of the WSEP. The preferred alternative would use fewer swales in order to minimize effects to vernal pools and limits the number of recharge basins to the number needed for the project to be practicable. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could involve the moving of up to 2.5 million cubic yards of soil and result in the permanent loss or significant alteration of 454 acres of annual grasslands, alkali grassland, alkali rain pool, vernal pool and freshwater marsh, and cultivated lands. Construction related to installing 87,776 linear feet of recovery pipelines and installing 49 new recovery wells will result in temporary impacts to 326 acres of annual grasslands and alkali grassland. Wildlife species potentially affected include: California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, San Joaquin kit fox, and Fresno kangaroo rat. Residences would be exposed to noise from grading, construction, and well drilling operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Farmland Protection Policy Act, Public Law 11-111, and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0262D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110183, Final EIS--316 pages and maps, Appendices--455 pages, June 17, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Agency number: EIS-06-127 KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Irrigation KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - California KW - Farmland Protection Policy Act, Compliance KW - Public Law 11-111, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409715?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 9] T2 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884409713; 14944-3_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The Madera Irrigation District (MID) Water Supply Enhancement Project (WSEP), west of the city of Madera, in Madera County, California is proposed. MID encompasses 128,292 acres and operates and maintains a gravity irrigation distribution system of 300 miles of open flow canals and 150 miles of pipelines to deliver water to its service area as part of the Hidden Unit (Fresno River) and Friant Division (San Joaquin River) long-term water supply contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. Currently, farmers in MIDs service area use a combination of groundwater and surface water. During dry years, there is not adequate surface water to meet the water demand and groundwater pumping increases substantially, resulting in groundwater overdraft. The WSEP would involve construction of a groundwater bank on the property known as Madera Ranch and allow MID to store a portion of their Central Valley Project (CVP) water from the San Joaquin and Fresno Rivers and other non-CVP water in the newly constructed aquifer. Water would be banked in the aquifer and 10 percent of the water would be left behind to reduce overdraft. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential impacts on water quality, water supply, water rights issues, biological resources, and farm economics. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Reduced Alternative B, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would involve construction and operation of facilities to convey and bank surface water beneath Madera Ranch using 550 acres of natural swales and later to recover up to 90 percent of the banked water for beneficial use. Phase 1 would involve only recharge-related facilities. Phase 2 would involve Phase 2 would involve constructing 323 acres of recharge basins and facilities for recovery of banked water. Reclamation would approve banking of MID CVP water outside the MID service area and issue a permit to extend the Reclamation-owned 24.2 Canal. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help meet current and future water storage needs, enhance water supply reliability and flexibility, reduce aquifer overdraft, and encourage conjunctive use in the region as a means toward self-sufficiency. The project would result in beneficial effects on groundwater recharge rates, subsidence, and socioeconomics because of the increased reliability of water in dry years and the gradual groundwater recharge proposed as part of the WSEP. The preferred alternative would use fewer swales in order to minimize effects to vernal pools and limits the number of recharge basins to the number needed for the project to be practicable. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could involve the moving of up to 2.5 million cubic yards of soil and result in the permanent loss or significant alteration of 454 acres of annual grasslands, alkali grassland, alkali rain pool, vernal pool and freshwater marsh, and cultivated lands. Construction related to installing 87,776 linear feet of recovery pipelines and installing 49 new recovery wells will result in temporary impacts to 326 acres of annual grasslands and alkali grassland. Wildlife species potentially affected include: California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, San Joaquin kit fox, and Fresno kangaroo rat. Residences would be exposed to noise from grading, construction, and well drilling operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Farmland Protection Policy Act, Public Law 11-111, and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0262D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110183, Final EIS--316 pages and maps, Appendices--455 pages, June 17, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Agency number: EIS-06-127 KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Irrigation KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - California KW - Farmland Protection Policy Act, Compliance KW - Public Law 11-111, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409713?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 9] T2 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884409711; 14944-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The Madera Irrigation District (MID) Water Supply Enhancement Project (WSEP), west of the city of Madera, in Madera County, California is proposed. MID encompasses 128,292 acres and operates and maintains a gravity irrigation distribution system of 300 miles of open flow canals and 150 miles of pipelines to deliver water to its service area as part of the Hidden Unit (Fresno River) and Friant Division (San Joaquin River) long-term water supply contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. Currently, farmers in MIDs service area use a combination of groundwater and surface water. During dry years, there is not adequate surface water to meet the water demand and groundwater pumping increases substantially, resulting in groundwater overdraft. The WSEP would involve construction of a groundwater bank on the property known as Madera Ranch and allow MID to store a portion of their Central Valley Project (CVP) water from the San Joaquin and Fresno Rivers and other non-CVP water in the newly constructed aquifer. Water would be banked in the aquifer and 10 percent of the water would be left behind to reduce overdraft. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential impacts on water quality, water supply, water rights issues, biological resources, and farm economics. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Reduced Alternative B, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would involve construction and operation of facilities to convey and bank surface water beneath Madera Ranch using 550 acres of natural swales and later to recover up to 90 percent of the banked water for beneficial use. Phase 1 would involve only recharge-related facilities. Phase 2 would involve Phase 2 would involve constructing 323 acres of recharge basins and facilities for recovery of banked water. Reclamation would approve banking of MID CVP water outside the MID service area and issue a permit to extend the Reclamation-owned 24.2 Canal. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help meet current and future water storage needs, enhance water supply reliability and flexibility, reduce aquifer overdraft, and encourage conjunctive use in the region as a means toward self-sufficiency. The project would result in beneficial effects on groundwater recharge rates, subsidence, and socioeconomics because of the increased reliability of water in dry years and the gradual groundwater recharge proposed as part of the WSEP. The preferred alternative would use fewer swales in order to minimize effects to vernal pools and limits the number of recharge basins to the number needed for the project to be practicable. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could involve the moving of up to 2.5 million cubic yards of soil and result in the permanent loss or significant alteration of 454 acres of annual grasslands, alkali grassland, alkali rain pool, vernal pool and freshwater marsh, and cultivated lands. Construction related to installing 87,776 linear feet of recovery pipelines and installing 49 new recovery wells will result in temporary impacts to 326 acres of annual grasslands and alkali grassland. Wildlife species potentially affected include: California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, San Joaquin kit fox, and Fresno kangaroo rat. Residences would be exposed to noise from grading, construction, and well drilling operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Farmland Protection Policy Act, Public Law 11-111, and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0262D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110183, Final EIS--316 pages and maps, Appendices--455 pages, June 17, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Agency number: EIS-06-127 KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Irrigation KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - California KW - Farmland Protection Policy Act, Compliance KW - Public Law 11-111, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409711?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 9] T2 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884409709; 14944-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The Madera Irrigation District (MID) Water Supply Enhancement Project (WSEP), west of the city of Madera, in Madera County, California is proposed. MID encompasses 128,292 acres and operates and maintains a gravity irrigation distribution system of 300 miles of open flow canals and 150 miles of pipelines to deliver water to its service area as part of the Hidden Unit (Fresno River) and Friant Division (San Joaquin River) long-term water supply contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. Currently, farmers in MIDs service area use a combination of groundwater and surface water. During dry years, there is not adequate surface water to meet the water demand and groundwater pumping increases substantially, resulting in groundwater overdraft. The WSEP would involve construction of a groundwater bank on the property known as Madera Ranch and allow MID to store a portion of their Central Valley Project (CVP) water from the San Joaquin and Fresno Rivers and other non-CVP water in the newly constructed aquifer. Water would be banked in the aquifer and 10 percent of the water would be left behind to reduce overdraft. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential impacts on water quality, water supply, water rights issues, biological resources, and farm economics. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Reduced Alternative B, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would involve construction and operation of facilities to convey and bank surface water beneath Madera Ranch using 550 acres of natural swales and later to recover up to 90 percent of the banked water for beneficial use. Phase 1 would involve only recharge-related facilities. Phase 2 would involve Phase 2 would involve constructing 323 acres of recharge basins and facilities for recovery of banked water. Reclamation would approve banking of MID CVP water outside the MID service area and issue a permit to extend the Reclamation-owned 24.2 Canal. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help meet current and future water storage needs, enhance water supply reliability and flexibility, reduce aquifer overdraft, and encourage conjunctive use in the region as a means toward self-sufficiency. The project would result in beneficial effects on groundwater recharge rates, subsidence, and socioeconomics because of the increased reliability of water in dry years and the gradual groundwater recharge proposed as part of the WSEP. The preferred alternative would use fewer swales in order to minimize effects to vernal pools and limits the number of recharge basins to the number needed for the project to be practicable. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could involve the moving of up to 2.5 million cubic yards of soil and result in the permanent loss or significant alteration of 454 acres of annual grasslands, alkali grassland, alkali rain pool, vernal pool and freshwater marsh, and cultivated lands. Construction related to installing 87,776 linear feet of recovery pipelines and installing 49 new recovery wells will result in temporary impacts to 326 acres of annual grasslands and alkali grassland. Wildlife species potentially affected include: California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, San Joaquin kit fox, and Fresno kangaroo rat. Residences would be exposed to noise from grading, construction, and well drilling operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Farmland Protection Policy Act, Public Law 11-111, and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0262D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110183, Final EIS--316 pages and maps, Appendices--455 pages, June 17, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Agency number: EIS-06-127 KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Irrigation KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - California KW - Farmland Protection Policy Act, Compliance KW - Public Law 11-111, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409709?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 9] T2 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884409707; 14944-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The Madera Irrigation District (MID) Water Supply Enhancement Project (WSEP), west of the city of Madera, in Madera County, California is proposed. MID encompasses 128,292 acres and operates and maintains a gravity irrigation distribution system of 300 miles of open flow canals and 150 miles of pipelines to deliver water to its service area as part of the Hidden Unit (Fresno River) and Friant Division (San Joaquin River) long-term water supply contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. Currently, farmers in MIDs service area use a combination of groundwater and surface water. During dry years, there is not adequate surface water to meet the water demand and groundwater pumping increases substantially, resulting in groundwater overdraft. The WSEP would involve construction of a groundwater bank on the property known as Madera Ranch and allow MID to store a portion of their Central Valley Project (CVP) water from the San Joaquin and Fresno Rivers and other non-CVP water in the newly constructed aquifer. Water would be banked in the aquifer and 10 percent of the water would be left behind to reduce overdraft. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential impacts on water quality, water supply, water rights issues, biological resources, and farm economics. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Reduced Alternative B, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would involve construction and operation of facilities to convey and bank surface water beneath Madera Ranch using 550 acres of natural swales and later to recover up to 90 percent of the banked water for beneficial use. Phase 1 would involve only recharge-related facilities. Phase 2 would involve Phase 2 would involve constructing 323 acres of recharge basins and facilities for recovery of banked water. Reclamation would approve banking of MID CVP water outside the MID service area and issue a permit to extend the Reclamation-owned 24.2 Canal. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help meet current and future water storage needs, enhance water supply reliability and flexibility, reduce aquifer overdraft, and encourage conjunctive use in the region as a means toward self-sufficiency. The project would result in beneficial effects on groundwater recharge rates, subsidence, and socioeconomics because of the increased reliability of water in dry years and the gradual groundwater recharge proposed as part of the WSEP. The preferred alternative would use fewer swales in order to minimize effects to vernal pools and limits the number of recharge basins to the number needed for the project to be practicable. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could involve the moving of up to 2.5 million cubic yards of soil and result in the permanent loss or significant alteration of 454 acres of annual grasslands, alkali grassland, alkali rain pool, vernal pool and freshwater marsh, and cultivated lands. Construction related to installing 87,776 linear feet of recovery pipelines and installing 49 new recovery wells will result in temporary impacts to 326 acres of annual grasslands and alkali grassland. Wildlife species potentially affected include: California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, San Joaquin kit fox, and Fresno kangaroo rat. Residences would be exposed to noise from grading, construction, and well drilling operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Farmland Protection Policy Act, Public Law 11-111, and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0262D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110183, Final EIS--316 pages and maps, Appendices--455 pages, June 17, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Agency number: EIS-06-127 KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Irrigation KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - California KW - Farmland Protection Policy Act, Compliance KW - Public Law 11-111, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409707?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 9] T2 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884409704; 14944-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The Madera Irrigation District (MID) Water Supply Enhancement Project (WSEP), west of the city of Madera, in Madera County, California is proposed. MID encompasses 128,292 acres and operates and maintains a gravity irrigation distribution system of 300 miles of open flow canals and 150 miles of pipelines to deliver water to its service area as part of the Hidden Unit (Fresno River) and Friant Division (San Joaquin River) long-term water supply contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. Currently, farmers in MIDs service area use a combination of groundwater and surface water. During dry years, there is not adequate surface water to meet the water demand and groundwater pumping increases substantially, resulting in groundwater overdraft. The WSEP would involve construction of a groundwater bank on the property known as Madera Ranch and allow MID to store a portion of their Central Valley Project (CVP) water from the San Joaquin and Fresno Rivers and other non-CVP water in the newly constructed aquifer. Water would be banked in the aquifer and 10 percent of the water would be left behind to reduce overdraft. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential impacts on water quality, water supply, water rights issues, biological resources, and farm economics. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Reduced Alternative B, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would involve construction and operation of facilities to convey and bank surface water beneath Madera Ranch using 550 acres of natural swales and later to recover up to 90 percent of the banked water for beneficial use. Phase 1 would involve only recharge-related facilities. Phase 2 would involve Phase 2 would involve constructing 323 acres of recharge basins and facilities for recovery of banked water. Reclamation would approve banking of MID CVP water outside the MID service area and issue a permit to extend the Reclamation-owned 24.2 Canal. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help meet current and future water storage needs, enhance water supply reliability and flexibility, reduce aquifer overdraft, and encourage conjunctive use in the region as a means toward self-sufficiency. The project would result in beneficial effects on groundwater recharge rates, subsidence, and socioeconomics because of the increased reliability of water in dry years and the gradual groundwater recharge proposed as part of the WSEP. The preferred alternative would use fewer swales in order to minimize effects to vernal pools and limits the number of recharge basins to the number needed for the project to be practicable. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could involve the moving of up to 2.5 million cubic yards of soil and result in the permanent loss or significant alteration of 454 acres of annual grasslands, alkali grassland, alkali rain pool, vernal pool and freshwater marsh, and cultivated lands. Construction related to installing 87,776 linear feet of recovery pipelines and installing 49 new recovery wells will result in temporary impacts to 326 acres of annual grasslands and alkali grassland. Wildlife species potentially affected include: California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, San Joaquin kit fox, and Fresno kangaroo rat. Residences would be exposed to noise from grading, construction, and well drilling operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Farmland Protection Policy Act, Public Law 11-111, and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0262D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110183, Final EIS--316 pages and maps, Appendices--455 pages, June 17, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Agency number: EIS-06-127 KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Irrigation KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - California KW - Farmland Protection Policy Act, Compliance KW - Public Law 11-111, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409704?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 9] T2 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884409701; 14944-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The Madera Irrigation District (MID) Water Supply Enhancement Project (WSEP), west of the city of Madera, in Madera County, California is proposed. MID encompasses 128,292 acres and operates and maintains a gravity irrigation distribution system of 300 miles of open flow canals and 150 miles of pipelines to deliver water to its service area as part of the Hidden Unit (Fresno River) and Friant Division (San Joaquin River) long-term water supply contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. Currently, farmers in MIDs service area use a combination of groundwater and surface water. During dry years, there is not adequate surface water to meet the water demand and groundwater pumping increases substantially, resulting in groundwater overdraft. The WSEP would involve construction of a groundwater bank on the property known as Madera Ranch and allow MID to store a portion of their Central Valley Project (CVP) water from the San Joaquin and Fresno Rivers and other non-CVP water in the newly constructed aquifer. Water would be banked in the aquifer and 10 percent of the water would be left behind to reduce overdraft. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential impacts on water quality, water supply, water rights issues, biological resources, and farm economics. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Reduced Alternative B, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would involve construction and operation of facilities to convey and bank surface water beneath Madera Ranch using 550 acres of natural swales and later to recover up to 90 percent of the banked water for beneficial use. Phase 1 would involve only recharge-related facilities. Phase 2 would involve Phase 2 would involve constructing 323 acres of recharge basins and facilities for recovery of banked water. Reclamation would approve banking of MID CVP water outside the MID service area and issue a permit to extend the Reclamation-owned 24.2 Canal. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help meet current and future water storage needs, enhance water supply reliability and flexibility, reduce aquifer overdraft, and encourage conjunctive use in the region as a means toward self-sufficiency. The project would result in beneficial effects on groundwater recharge rates, subsidence, and socioeconomics because of the increased reliability of water in dry years and the gradual groundwater recharge proposed as part of the WSEP. The preferred alternative would use fewer swales in order to minimize effects to vernal pools and limits the number of recharge basins to the number needed for the project to be practicable. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could involve the moving of up to 2.5 million cubic yards of soil and result in the permanent loss or significant alteration of 454 acres of annual grasslands, alkali grassland, alkali rain pool, vernal pool and freshwater marsh, and cultivated lands. Construction related to installing 87,776 linear feet of recovery pipelines and installing 49 new recovery wells will result in temporary impacts to 326 acres of annual grasslands and alkali grassland. Wildlife species potentially affected include: California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, San Joaquin kit fox, and Fresno kangaroo rat. Residences would be exposed to noise from grading, construction, and well drilling operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Farmland Protection Policy Act, Public Law 11-111, and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0262D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110183, Final EIS--316 pages and maps, Appendices--455 pages, June 17, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: EIS-06-127 KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Irrigation KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - California KW - Farmland Protection Policy Act, Compliance KW - Public Law 11-111, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409701?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 9] T2 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 884409695; 14944-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The Madera Irrigation District (MID) Water Supply Enhancement Project (WSEP), west of the city of Madera, in Madera County, California is proposed. MID encompasses 128,292 acres and operates and maintains a gravity irrigation distribution system of 300 miles of open flow canals and 150 miles of pipelines to deliver water to its service area as part of the Hidden Unit (Fresno River) and Friant Division (San Joaquin River) long-term water supply contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. Currently, farmers in MIDs service area use a combination of groundwater and surface water. During dry years, there is not adequate surface water to meet the water demand and groundwater pumping increases substantially, resulting in groundwater overdraft. The WSEP would involve construction of a groundwater bank on the property known as Madera Ranch and allow MID to store a portion of their Central Valley Project (CVP) water from the San Joaquin and Fresno Rivers and other non-CVP water in the newly constructed aquifer. Water would be banked in the aquifer and 10 percent of the water would be left behind to reduce overdraft. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential impacts on water quality, water supply, water rights issues, biological resources, and farm economics. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Reduced Alternative B, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would involve construction and operation of facilities to convey and bank surface water beneath Madera Ranch using 550 acres of natural swales and later to recover up to 90 percent of the banked water for beneficial use. Phase 1 would involve only recharge-related facilities. Phase 2 would involve Phase 2 would involve constructing 323 acres of recharge basins and facilities for recovery of banked water. Reclamation would approve banking of MID CVP water outside the MID service area and issue a permit to extend the Reclamation-owned 24.2 Canal. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help meet current and future water storage needs, enhance water supply reliability and flexibility, reduce aquifer overdraft, and encourage conjunctive use in the region as a means toward self-sufficiency. The project would result in beneficial effects on groundwater recharge rates, subsidence, and socioeconomics because of the increased reliability of water in dry years and the gradual groundwater recharge proposed as part of the WSEP. The preferred alternative would use fewer swales in order to minimize effects to vernal pools and limits the number of recharge basins to the number needed for the project to be practicable. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could involve the moving of up to 2.5 million cubic yards of soil and result in the permanent loss or significant alteration of 454 acres of annual grasslands, alkali grassland, alkali rain pool, vernal pool and freshwater marsh, and cultivated lands. Construction related to installing 87,776 linear feet of recovery pipelines and installing 49 new recovery wells will result in temporary impacts to 326 acres of annual grasslands and alkali grassland. Wildlife species potentially affected include: California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, San Joaquin kit fox, and Fresno kangaroo rat. Residences would be exposed to noise from grading, construction, and well drilling operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Farmland Protection Policy Act, Public Law 11-111, and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0262D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110183, Final EIS--316 pages and maps, Appendices--455 pages, June 17, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: EIS-06-127 KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Irrigation KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - California KW - Farmland Protection Policy Act, Compliance KW - Public Law 11-111, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/884409695?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876222529; 14944 AB - PURPOSE: The Madera Irrigation District (MID) Water Supply Enhancement Project (WSEP), west of the city of Madera, in Madera County, California is proposed. MID encompasses 128,292 acres and operates and maintains a gravity irrigation distribution system of 300 miles of open flow canals and 150 miles of pipelines to deliver water to its service area as part of the Hidden Unit (Fresno River) and Friant Division (San Joaquin River) long-term water supply contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. Currently, farmers in MIDs service area use a combination of groundwater and surface water. During dry years, there is not adequate surface water to meet the water demand and groundwater pumping increases substantially, resulting in groundwater overdraft. The WSEP would involve construction of a groundwater bank on the property known as Madera Ranch and allow MID to store a portion of their Central Valley Project (CVP) water from the San Joaquin and Fresno Rivers and other non-CVP water in the newly constructed aquifer. Water would be banked in the aquifer and 10 percent of the water would be left behind to reduce overdraft. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential impacts on water quality, water supply, water rights issues, biological resources, and farm economics. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Reduced Alternative B, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would involve construction and operation of facilities to convey and bank surface water beneath Madera Ranch using 550 acres of natural swales and later to recover up to 90 percent of the banked water for beneficial use. Phase 1 would involve only recharge-related facilities. Phase 2 would involve Phase 2 would involve constructing 323 acres of recharge basins and facilities for recovery of banked water. Reclamation would approve banking of MID CVP water outside the MID service area and issue a permit to extend the Reclamation-owned 24.2 Canal. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help meet current and future water storage needs, enhance water supply reliability and flexibility, reduce aquifer overdraft, and encourage conjunctive use in the region as a means toward self-sufficiency. The project would result in beneficial effects on groundwater recharge rates, subsidence, and socioeconomics because of the increased reliability of water in dry years and the gradual groundwater recharge proposed as part of the WSEP. The preferred alternative would use fewer swales in order to minimize effects to vernal pools and limits the number of recharge basins to the number needed for the project to be practicable. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could involve the moving of up to 2.5 million cubic yards of soil and result in the permanent loss or significant alteration of 454 acres of annual grasslands, alkali grassland, alkali rain pool, vernal pool and freshwater marsh, and cultivated lands. Construction related to installing 87,776 linear feet of recovery pipelines and installing 49 new recovery wells will result in temporary impacts to 326 acres of annual grasslands and alkali grassland. Wildlife species potentially affected include: California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, San Joaquin kit fox, and Fresno kangaroo rat. Residences would be exposed to noise from grading, construction, and well drilling operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Farmland Protection Policy Act, Public Law 11-111, and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0262D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110183, Final EIS--316 pages and maps, Appendices--455 pages, June 17, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Agency number: EIS-06-127 KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Irrigation KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - California KW - Farmland Protection Policy Act, Compliance KW - Public Law 11-111, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876222529?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Coupling multi-criteria decision analysis, life-cycle assessment, and risk assessment for emerging threats. AN - 872527309; 21524065 AB - Emerging environmental threats such as novel chemical compounds, biological agents, and nanomaterials present serious challenges to traditional models of risk analysis and regulatory risk management processes. Even a massive expansion of risk and life-cycle assessment research efforts is unlikely to keep pace with rapid technological change resulting in new and modified materials with changing properties. Therefore, it is essential to have a framework for interpreting available information in the context of high uncertainty and a strategy for prioritizing research efforts to reduce those uncertainties that are most critical. We discuss how integrating the three analytic approaches of risk assessment, life-cycle assessment, and multicriteria decision analysis into a framework permits understanding uncertainty and prioritizes needs for scientific research. Our approach is illustrated with two separate cases: nanomaterials and contaminated sediment remediation. JF - Environmental science & technology AU - Linkov, Igor AU - Seager, Thomas P AD - Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Research and Development Center, Concord, Massachusetts 01742, USA. igor.linkov@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2011/06/15/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Jun 15 SP - 5068 EP - 5074 VL - 45 IS - 12 KW - Soil Pollutants KW - 0 KW - Index Medicus KW - Geologic Sediments -- chemistry KW - Soil Pollutants -- analysis KW - Risk Assessment KW - Environmental Pollution -- analysis KW - Decision Support Techniques UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/872527309?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+science+%26+technology&rft.atitle=Coupling+multi-criteria+decision+analysis%2C+life-cycle+assessment%2C+and+risk+assessment+for+emerging+threats.&rft.au=Linkov%2C+Igor%3BSeager%2C+Thomas+P&rft.aulast=Linkov&rft.aufirst=Igor&rft.date=2011-06-15&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=5068&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+science+%26+technology&rft.issn=1520-5851&rft_id=info:doi/10.1021%2Fes100959q LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2011-09-30 N1 - Date created - 2011-06-13 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Comment In: Environ Sci Technol. 2011 Jun 15;45(12):5066 [21663311] N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es100959q ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 135 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468550; 14937-6_0135 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 135 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468550?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 134 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468540; 14937-6_0134 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 134 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468540?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 133 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468409; 14937-6_0133 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 133 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468409?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 101 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468406; 14937-6_0101 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 101 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468406?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 95 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468405; 14937-6_0095 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 95 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468405?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 55 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468394; 14937-6_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 55 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468394?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 54 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468387; 14937-6_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 54 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468387?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 86 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468380; 14937-6_0086 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 86 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468380?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 81 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468292; 14937-6_0081 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 81 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468292?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 80 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468281; 14937-6_0080 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 80 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468281?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 77 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468270; 14937-6_0077 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 77 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468270?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 76 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468249; 14937-6_0076 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 76 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468249?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 74 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468181; 14937-6_0074 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 74 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468181?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 73 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468156; 14937-6_0073 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 73 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468156?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 132 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467693; 14937-6_0132 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 132 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467693?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 100 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467053; 14937-6_0100 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 100 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467053?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 99 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467052; 14937-6_0099 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 99 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467052?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 98 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467051; 14937-6_0098 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 98 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467051?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 123 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467050; 14937-6_0123 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 123 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467050?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 87 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467049; 14937-6_0087 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 87 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467049?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 121 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467048; 14937-6_0121 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 121 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467048?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 83 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467047; 14937-6_0083 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 83 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467047?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 111 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467046; 14937-6_0111 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 111 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467046?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 110 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467045; 14937-6_0110 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 110 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467045?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 127 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467042; 14937-6_0127 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 127 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467042?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 126 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467041; 14937-6_0126 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 126 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467041?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 131 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467040; 14937-6_0131 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 131 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467040?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 122 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467039; 14937-6_0122 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 122 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467039?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 117 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467038; 14937-6_0117 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 117 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467038?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 97 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467037; 14937-6_0097 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 97 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467037?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 112 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467036; 14937-6_0112 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 112 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467036?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 92 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467035; 14937-6_0092 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 92 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467035?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 82 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467034; 14937-6_0082 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 82 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467034?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 56 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467032; 14937-6_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 56 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467032?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 58 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467031; 14937-6_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 58 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467031?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 85 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467029; 14937-6_0085 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 85 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467029?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 84 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467028; 14937-6_0084 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 84 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467028?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 89 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467027; 14937-6_0089 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 89 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467027?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 88 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467026; 14937-6_0088 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 88 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467026?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 125 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467025; 14937-6_0125 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 125 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467025?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 75 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467024; 14937-6_0075 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 75 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467024?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 120 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467023; 14937-6_0120 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 120 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467023?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 72 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467022; 14937-6_0072 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 72 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467022?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 130 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467020; 14937-6_0130 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 130 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467020?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 114 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467019; 14937-6_0114 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 114 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467019?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 129 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467017; 14937-6_0129 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 129 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467017?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 124 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467013; 14937-6_0124 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 124 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467013?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 107 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467011; 14937-6_0107 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 107 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467011?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 102 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467006; 14937-6_0102 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 102 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467006?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 106 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467005; 14937-6_0106 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 106 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467005?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 116 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467003; 14937-6_0116 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 116 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467003?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 91 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467001; 14937-6_0091 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 91 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 113 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466999; 14937-6_0113 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 113 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466999?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 79 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466998; 14937-6_0079 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 79 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466998?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 108 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466997; 14937-6_0108 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 108 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466997?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 78 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466996; 14937-6_0078 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 78 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466996?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 103 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466995; 14937-6_0103 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 103 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466995?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 128 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466994; 14937-6_0128 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 128 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466994?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 119 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466993; 14937-6_0119 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 119 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466993?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 115 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466991; 14937-6_0115 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 115 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466991?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 109 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466990; 14937-6_0109 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 109 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466990?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 105 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466989; 14937-6_0105 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 105 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466989?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 68 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466987; 14937-6_0068 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 68 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466987?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 66 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466986; 14937-6_0066 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 66 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466986?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 69 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466985; 14937-6_0069 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 69 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466985?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 96 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466984; 14937-6_0096 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 96 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466984?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 65 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466983; 14937-6_0065 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 65 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466983?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 94 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466982; 14937-6_0094 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 94 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466982?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 70 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466980; 14937-6_0070 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 70 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466980?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 61 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466979; 14937-6_0061 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 61 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466979?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 64 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466978; 14937-6_0064 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 64 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466978?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 63 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466977; 14937-6_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 63 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466977?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 60 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466976; 14937-6_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 60 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466976?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 59 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466975; 14937-6_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 59 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466975?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 90 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466974; 14937-6_0090 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 90 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466974?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 67 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466972; 14937-6_0067 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 67 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466972?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 52 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466964; 14937-6_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 52 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466964?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 224 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466963; 14937-6_0224 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 224 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466963?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 57 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466962; 14937-6_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 57 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466962?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 51 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466960; 14937-6_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 51 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466960?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 49 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466958; 14937-6_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466958?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 41 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466957; 14937-6_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466957?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 38 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466956; 14937-6_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466956?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 30 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466955; 14937-6_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466955?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 23 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466954; 14937-6_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466954?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 22 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466953; 14937-6_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466953?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 19 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466952; 14937-6_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466952?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 28 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466949; 14937-6_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466949?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 42 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466948; 14937-6_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466948?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 158 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466947; 14937-6_0158 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 158 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466947?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 27 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466946; 14937-6_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466946?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 157 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466945; 14937-6_0157 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 157 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466945?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 26 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466943; 14937-6_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466943?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 220 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466942; 14937-6_0220 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 220 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466942?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=16124642&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs10344-016-0993-1 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 36 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466941; 14937-6_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466941?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 213 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466939; 14937-6_0213 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 213 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466939?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 32 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466938; 14937-6_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466938?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 20 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466937; 14937-6_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466937?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 21 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466936; 14937-6_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466936?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 209 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466935; 14937-6_0209 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 209 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466935?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 50 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466934; 14937-6_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 50 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466934?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 25 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466933; 14937-6_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466933?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 167 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466932; 14937-6_0167 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 167 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466932?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 168 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466931; 14937-6_0168 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 168 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466931?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 202 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466930; 14937-6_0202 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 202 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466930?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 48 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466929; 14937-6_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 48 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466929?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 164 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466928; 14937-6_0164 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 164 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466928?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 160 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466927; 14937-6_0160 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 160 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466927?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 166 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466926; 14937-6_0166 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 166 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466926?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 222 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466925; 14937-6_0222 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 222 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466925?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 193 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466924; 14937-6_0193 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 193 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466924?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 214 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466922; 14937-6_0214 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 214 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466922?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 221 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466921; 14937-6_0221 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 221 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466921?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 165 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466920; 14937-6_0165 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 165 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466920?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 190 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466919; 14937-6_0190 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 190 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466919?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 196 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466918; 14937-6_0196 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 196 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466918?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 212 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466917; 14937-6_0212 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 212 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466917?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 219 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466916; 14937-6_0219 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 219 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466916?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 162 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466915; 14937-6_0162 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 162 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466915?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 208 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466914; 14937-6_0208 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 208 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466914?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 195 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466913; 14937-6_0195 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 195 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466913?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 159 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466912; 14937-6_0159 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 159 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466912?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 43 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466910; 14937-6_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466910?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 46 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466908; 14937-6_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 46 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466908?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 192 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466907; 14937-6_0192 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 192 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466907?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 31 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466906; 14937-6_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466906?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 205 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466905; 14937-6_0205 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 205 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466905?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 215 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466904; 14937-6_0215 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 215 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466904?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 191 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466903; 14937-6_0191 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 191 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466903?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 204 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466902; 14937-6_0204 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 204 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466902?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 35 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466901; 14937-6_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466901?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 210 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466900; 14937-6_0210 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 210 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466900?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 218 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466899; 14937-6_0218 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 218 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466899?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 198 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466898; 14937-6_0198 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 198 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466898?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=181&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=361&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Early+Child+Development+and+Care&rft.issn=03004430&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 45 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466897; 14937-6_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 45 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466897?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 217 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466896; 14937-6_0217 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 217 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466896?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 197 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466894; 14937-6_0197 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 197 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466894?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 44 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466893; 14937-6_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 44 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466893?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 207 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466892; 14937-6_0207 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 207 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466892?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 216 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466890; 14937-6_0216 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 216 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466890?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 34 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466889; 14937-6_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466889?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 29 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466888; 14937-6_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466888?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 170 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466887; 14937-6_0170 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 170 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466887?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 169 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466886; 14937-6_0169 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 169 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466886?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 39 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466884; 14937-6_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466884?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 206 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466883; 14937-6_0206 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 206 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466883?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 201 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466882; 14937-6_0201 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 201 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466882?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 211 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466881; 14937-6_0211 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 211 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466881?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 200 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466880; 14937-6_0200 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 200 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466880?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 18 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466879; 14937-6_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466879?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 17 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466878; 14937-6_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466878?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 16 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466877; 14937-6_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466877?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 156 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466876; 14937-6_0156 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 156 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466876?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 15 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466875; 14937-6_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466875?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 155 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466874; 14937-6_0155 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 155 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466874?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 4 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466873; 14937-6_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466873?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466872; 14937-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466872?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 154 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466871; 14937-6_0154 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 154 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466871?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 189 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466865; 14937-6_0189 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 189 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466865?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 188 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466858; 14937-6_0188 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 188 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466858?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 6 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466854; 14937-6_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466854?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 153 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466853; 14937-6_0153 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 153 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466853?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 148 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466851; 14937-6_0148 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 148 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466851?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 5 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466850; 14937-6_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466850?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 138 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466849; 14937-6_0138 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 138 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466849?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 147 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466848; 14937-6_0147 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 147 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466848?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466843; 14937-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466843?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 141 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466833; 14937-6_0141 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 141 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466833?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 13 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466831; 14937-6_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466831?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 182 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466830; 14937-6_0182 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 182 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466830?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 140 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466828; 14937-6_0140 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 140 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466828?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 12 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466827; 14937-6_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466827?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 146 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466826; 14937-6_0146 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 146 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466826?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 187 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466825; 14937-6_0187 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 187 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466825?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 139 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466824; 14937-6_0139 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 139 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466824?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 181 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466822; 14937-6_0181 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 181 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466822?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 151 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466820; 14937-6_0151 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 151 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466820?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 174 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466819; 14937-6_0174 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 174 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466819?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 9 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466818; 14937-6_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466818?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 150 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466817; 14937-6_0150 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 150 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466817?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466816; 14937-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466816?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 8 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466815; 14937-6_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466815?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 14 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466814; 14937-6_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466814?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 175 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466813; 14937-6_0175 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 175 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466813?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 145 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466812; 14937-6_0145 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 145 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466812?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 7 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466811; 14937-6_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466811?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 149 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466810; 14937-6_0149 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 149 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466810?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 172 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466809; 14937-6_0172 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 172 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466809?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 144 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466808; 14937-6_0144 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 144 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466808?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 152 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466807; 14937-6_0152 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 152 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466807?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 143 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466806; 14937-6_0143 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 143 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466806?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 185 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466805; 14937-6_0185 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 185 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466805?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 137 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466804; 14937-6_0137 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 137 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466804?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 186 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466803; 14937-6_0186 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 186 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466803?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 171 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466802; 14937-6_0171 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 171 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466802?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 142 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466801; 14937-6_0142 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 142 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466801?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 184 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466800; 14937-6_0184 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 184 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466800?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 180 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466799; 14937-6_0180 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 180 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466799?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 178 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466798; 14937-6_0178 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 178 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466798?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 183 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466797; 14937-6_0183 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 183 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466797?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 179 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466796; 14937-6_0179 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 179 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466796?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 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. [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 - 879466795; 14942-1_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, was authorized for incorporation into the NOV federal project after extensive damage during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 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 this final 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 selected alternative, 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: 110181, Final EIS--216 pages, Appendices--638 pages, June 10, 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/879466795?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&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, Vicksburg, Mississippi; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 177 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466794; 14937-6_0177 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 177 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466794?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 176 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466793; 14937-6_0176 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 176 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466793?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 173 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466792; 14937-6_0173 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 173 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466792?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 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 - 876183048; 14942 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, was authorized for incorporation into the NOV federal project after extensive damage during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 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 this final 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 selected alternative, 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: 110181, Final EIS--216 pages, Appendices--638 pages, June 10, 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/876183048?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&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, Vicksburg, Mississippi; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 16372922; 14937 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16372922?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 5 of 13] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 876254874; 14931-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: A beach nourishment project within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County on Floridas east coast is proposed. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, elongated barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses along county beaches since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts that offshore shoal dredging would create. This draft EIS considers seven alternatives in detail: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) south segment beach and dune restoration, north segment dune restoration only; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. The alternative preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District would fill the beach with sand from an offshore source to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm extending seaward from the dune toe along the length of the project area. The project would entail placement of 610,000 cubic yards of sand over 3.8 miles of barrier island shoreline to stabilize the beach and restore the dune along the South St. Lucie County beaches. As currently proposed, the 610,000 cubic yards of sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, approximately three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Projected renourishment events would require 200,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and May 1 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation reefs comprised of limestone boulders would be placed in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. If sand from upland mines were used, the project would eliminate all in-water activity and pipelines along the beach. Trucks filled at the sand mine would traverse the beach and deposit sand at the necessary location where bulldozers would shape the sand. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beaches would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 1.08 acres of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. 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: 110170, Draft EIS--230 pages, Appendices--562 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida 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/876254874?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 4 of 13] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 876254867; 14931-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: A beach nourishment project within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County on Floridas east coast is proposed. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, elongated barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses along county beaches since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts that offshore shoal dredging would create. This draft EIS considers seven alternatives in detail: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) south segment beach and dune restoration, north segment dune restoration only; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. The alternative preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District would fill the beach with sand from an offshore source to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm extending seaward from the dune toe along the length of the project area. The project would entail placement of 610,000 cubic yards of sand over 3.8 miles of barrier island shoreline to stabilize the beach and restore the dune along the South St. Lucie County beaches. As currently proposed, the 610,000 cubic yards of sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, approximately three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Projected renourishment events would require 200,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and May 1 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation reefs comprised of limestone boulders would be placed in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. If sand from upland mines were used, the project would eliminate all in-water activity and pipelines along the beach. Trucks filled at the sand mine would traverse the beach and deposit sand at the necessary location where bulldozers would shape the sand. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beaches would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 1.08 acres of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. 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: 110170, Draft EIS--230 pages, Appendices--562 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida 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/876254867?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER -